Revision as of 08:18, 20 October 2006 editCrud3w4re (talk | contribs)191 edits Crap← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:42, 2 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,145 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (Top) (Rater) | ||
(327 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
==Incorrect Information== | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} | |||
{{WikiProject Disability}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{press | |||
| subject = article | |||
| author=] | |||
| title=Time to stick it again to the Arabs | |||
| org=] | |||
| url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/time-to-stick-it-again-to-the-arabs-1.319207 | |||
| date=2010-10-15 | |||
| accessdate= 2010-10-16 | |||
}} | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
"The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797)." -from hate crime wikipedia article | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-01-11">11 January 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-03-13">13 March 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
-But this is the text of HR 4797 from the Library of Congress online | |||
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103OAXo1R:: | |||
103d CONGRESS | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
2d Session | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-01-26">26 January 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-05-07">7 May 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
H. R. 4797 | |||
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge. | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | |||
== Iran == | |||
I have a concern with this section. The individual country sections are detailing hate crime laws/legislation in those countries, where the entry for Iran talks about actions of the state against homosexuals. This material seems much more suited to ]. ] (]) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:If there are no objections I will move/merge the material as above. ] (]) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
July 19, 1994 | |||
::Obviously I object. It's relevant because of Iran's presence in the media regarding their hate crimes against gays. Their own President saying "There aren't any homosexuals in Iran" was all over the news, world wide. The section on Iran's torture and killing of gay Iranians speaks to how it deals with hate crimes. '''-''' <span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Mr. LANCASTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries | |||
:::Is there a source describing their actions as a hate crime, rather than a human rights abuse? My view of hate crime is more related to individuals and/or groups actions toward others, rather than a governments actions toward it's citizens. ] (]) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Anyone else? ] (]) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::It sounds like it would be relevant to both topics to me. ]]] 05:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::Has it already been moved or is it the last paragraph with many refs on it? ] 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
A BILL | |||
:::::::It's the last paragraph with many refs on it. '''-''' ℅ <span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper barge. | |||
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina State official number 264959). | |||
I have a concern with the entire section. It is supposed to be a section that describes the laws in the nation dealing specifically with hate crimes. None of the sentences do that, neither the ones referencing the constitution nor the ones that describe Iran's human rights record. | |||
= | |||
'''more errata for you''' | |||
Look at all the other nation's entries. Each describes the state of hate crime enhancement laws, or the lack thereof, in the country. Iran just looks like someone added the consitution entries to make Iran look good in this light, and then others added the human rights record to debate that. Really, all of this material should be removed and replaced with specific information on hate crime punishment in Iran, of whatever form they might have.--] (]) 04:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
''Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.'' | |||
::Okay, I pared down the whole section. Most of the consitution references don't deal with hate crimes. I kept the one that came the closest, so as not to have to blank the entire section. I have been unable to source any material that deals directly with the topic of hate crimes protections in Iran. --] (]) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
I don't see anything in the earlier text or letter of the law indicating that the victim must be a minority. | |||
:::Revisiting this, I now suggest removing the entire Iran section. Here's why: a nation does not necessarily have laws related to hate or bias crimes they way they are defined in this article. There is now already a list growing in this article naming such countries. The section of the Iran constitution quoted plainly does not relate to bias crimes. I have been unable to find ANY information from a secondary source about such legislation in Iran (for two years, see above.) So I've removed the section. Anyone wishing to bring it back should just please find a cite that's on-topic. --] (]) 03:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
''As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. '' | |||
==Change to lede: perceived membership== | |||
Hate crime laws were not passed in 1969. I think Title 18 USC 45 refers to civil rights legislation, not hate crime legislation. | |||
I have changed the following sentence in the lead: | |||
03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, | |||
==where is the "against" argument?== | |||
to | |||
I notice that there is no "against" argument for hate crimes under the ""arguments for and against hate crimes." | |||
: Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her '''perceived''' membership in a certain social group, | |||
THis, to me, is just one more example of the left-wing bias here on Misplaced Pages. SO, for all the people here talking about how there's no bias in the hate crime argument, we need to look no further than this wikipedia entry to discover that nobody can even come up with an argument against it. And this does not mean there ISN'T one, there's always another point of view. I think people here simply don't want to give any credence to the other side of the argument. | |||
Hate crimes are generally defined according to motive. A gay-bashing does not become less a crime directed against gay people, for instance, just because the victim is a heterosexual mistaken for a homosexual. --] 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I think hate crime legislation is deplorable. Regarding some of the comments here: I've never heard of minorities being accused of hate crimes against whites. Could the 9/11 event be considered a hate crime? Or the recent (04/06) attack on an NYU student by a gang of black youths who shouted "get the white guy!", chased him into the street where he was hit by a car, then stood around and laughed while he lay there dying? | |||
How is it possible to criminalize a FEELING? | |||
== Israel == | |||
The whole hate crime movement is simply a farce staged by politicians courting a minority vote. | |||
Why isn't Israel on the list? | |||
An assault is an assault. A robbery is a robbery. Let's not get too emotional or read into things too much. If you want to separate church and state (distinguishing between irrational and rational, scientific vs. superstition) then let's see things objectively, and not penalize a person for what's in their heads. Let's punish their actions, not their motivations. | |||
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1104506.html <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Canada in Eurasia == | |||
If a minority group decides to boycott a certain business becuase they hate the race of the owner, and the business fails as a result, is that considered a hate crime? If a black man is caught robbing a bank, and later admits that he hates white people, should we add the hate crime charge? Was his crime predicated on his contempt for a "white" bank's riches? | |||
Got to be merged with Canada in its right place. ] (]) 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Could we conclude that the omission of any argument AGAINST hate crime on Misplaced Pages constitutes a hate crime in itself? I think there is no "against" entry because of people's racist and contemptuous attitudes toward the majority. Therefore, are their feelings of hate a CRIME??? | |||
* '''Merged''' Canada into North America section. Per ], I've made a few adjustments to the use of double and single quotes and attached references to each quote. I felt the two sentences regarding Section 319 were redundant and have merged them together as well. Feel free to re-word. ] (]) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Homeless == | |||
''I agree with this. In my opinion, this article deserves the NPOV tag. I'm going to add it to this article, and recommend it stay there until this article is cleaned up or someone can present a better argument. I'm only seeing 1 side presented in this article.'' --] 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
I removed the section about hate crimes against homeless persons (added ) for several reasons, none challenging its validity. All of its links are now dead, so it lacks a ]. This subsection was copied and pasted into both this article and ], where it would be more appropriate anyway. ] is meant to be a ], so this just adds ]. More to the point, the section was added by the indefinitely banned sockpuppet ] and can be removed for this reason alone. - ] (]) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
If you don't like it, then fix it. There are 'against' arguments at one of the links on this page. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm Stop whining about it and edit the article. | |||
03 May 2006 | |||
==White-On-White Hate Crimes== | |||
'''-- These generalised attacks on the 'left' are spurious and unhelpful, as are comparisons between a lack of a piece of writing and bigotted attacks on people. Obviously hate crimes against white people are still hate crimes, and considered as such in law, so it would be sensible to check facts before making such blatently biased comments.''' | |||
A court in the United States has found that a white-on-white (or any same-race) crime can still be prosecuted as a racially motivated incident if the attacker was motivated by the victim's being in an ]. I'm not quite sure how to work this in, though (should it get its own section in this article, or should there be a separate article for same-race racially motivated violence?) Any advice would be welcome. ] (]) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Read the article! I quote: "Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s '''minority''' status." (my emphasis). White people are in the '''majority''' in America. Therefore, following the text of this article, crimes commited against whites by non-whites would not be considered hate crimes! Is there a reason no against has been added yet? If I find time tonight I will add it myself, however I would appreciate others inputs on this matter. ] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Just because the legal defenition of something is A, does not meant that the thing ''is'' A. There is probably (although I haven't researched it and it is purely speculation) a group, or groups, that feel that all hate-motivated crimes should me classified as hate crimes. If such a group exists, it should be mentioned.] 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The second ref may not be an RS, so it's a shame the first is so short. I'd recommend adding this tidbit into a subsection of ] instead of here once we have some more informative refs -- maybe as this case plays out. ] (]) 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''I would like to make it known that laws are vague and flawed which is the reason they are constantly being changed and amended. Hate crimes are not defined by minority status they are defined by an act of violence toward a group of people: race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic extraction etc. | |||
As for there being no argument against, instead of crying about it and blaming it on left-wing bias (which is ridiculous considering anyone can edit this site) how about doing a little research and finding the argument. I'll start off with the legislation is not needed. All crimes covered by the hate crime legislation are already illegal under existing federal and state laws. Also one of the major arguments pertaining to hate crimes is homosexuality being protected in the definition. Some say it should only protect characteristics that can not be changed such as gender, race and so forth because "homosexuality is a chosen act." Obviously there are rebuttals to these statements because there are multiple studies with evidence showing that sexual orientation is not chosen.''' http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm''''' | |||
*I'm glad that someone finally stated that hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred toward an individual because of his or her actual or perceived membership in one of a number of groups (race, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender). I don't know if jok3r is aware that intent is a significant part of a crime: when an individual commits a crime motivated by hatred, he/she is not only committing the primary criminal act, but is also intentionally issuing an assault towards all members of a group. He/she is establishing a contingency that IF one is a member of this group, THEN people like me will cause them physical harm. He/she is intending to commit assault: it's not just an unfortunate side effect of a hate crime. It's essentially the purpose of a hate crime. How do you attach a legal sanction to such a huge and detrimental statement? Hate crimes are not the same as non-hate motivated crimes- they are far more severe, and have many more victims. For this reason alone, it is sensible enough to institute enhanced penalties. Would I be going out in left field to ask '''unqualified partisan hacks''' to leave it to actual criminologists and other scholars to resolve this dispute? ] 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: There has been an increase of what would be called "hate crime" incidents over other social group status: Italians, Polish people, Mormons, French speaking Canadians, Southerners and Irish people. For example, to make an ethnic joke or claim "these people are so and so" can qualify as "hate speech" therefore an act of racial, sociocultural or ethnic group hatred. I'm not joking around here, this is serious since a person comes up to you and make fun of your group/background like they are "mafioso, polacks, polygamous or wackos, too stupid to speak English, rednecks or drunks/pagans". + ] (]) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
I don't think "criminologists and other scholars" have any more right to the interpretation and enactment of our laws than the common citizen. This is a society of equals, not one of subjects and elites. But basically, on the hate crimes issue, I think we have to explore the true motive of such legislation and recognize that such laws are political in nature and have no place in our society. | |||
== Is "hate speech" a "hate crime"? No. == | |||
First Amendment = free speech = free thought = (including) the right to have and to express unpopular ideas and opinions | |||
{| class="wikitable" border="1" | |||
Hate crime (thought crime) legislation infringes upon this right. Hate crimes = "thought" crimes. | |||
|- | |||
!Hate crime | |||
!Hate speech | |||
|- | |||
|A "hate crime" is a criminal matter. A "hate crime" has two elements: (1) a subsumed crime, e.g., assault, and (2) the perpetrator's hatred of the victim. The perpetrator hates the victim because the victim belongs (or is believed to belong) to some hated group. The perpetrator's hatred may be manifested by "'''hateful''' speech," by his ], by his ]s, or by other means. A "hate crime" has a higher penalty than the subsumed crime. | |||
|"Hate speech," in matters of law, is not the same as "'''hateful''' speech." Hate speech is an offense which may be a criminal matter or a civil wrong or both. Where hate speech is an offense, it is an offense by itself; hate speech does not need any other criminal behavior to accompany it. Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is offensive to some group that the law protects. Hateful speech does not amount to hate speech unless a protected group takes offense. | |||
|} | |||
]] 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
------------- | |||
Hate speech should not be included in Hate Crimes, based on constitutional decisions that have been noted in my removal. Hate speech, as opposed to speech that constitutes "fighting words" is protected as defined in Misplaced Pages's article on the subject of "hate speech" This was reverted when I amended this sentence on the "hate crime" page, which I will challenge and request a decision from administrators] (]) 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Misplaced Pages articles should have a ||WP:GLOBAL|global perspective]] as far as possible. You introduce a US perspective in the lead. A US perspective is OK to mention in the parts that discuss the specific situation in that country, but putting it in the lede puts undue weight on the law in one country. This is especially problematic as the US law regarding hate speech is unique. ] (]) 06:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Canada == | |||
For example: | |||
I removed the opinion which introduced the section on Canada because "An encyclopedia is a collection of facts" not opinions (See ].), and because the opinion deals with hate speech although this article is about hate crime. I removed the information about hate propaganda because that information is a matter of hate speech not hate crime. (Matters of hate speech are at ].) I quoted the hate crime provision of Canada's Criminal Code to show how hate crime provisions are worded. I deleted the mention of Canada's civil laws against discrimination because those laws are not a matter of hate crime. ]] 16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
If Person A assaults Person B, and the typical sentence is 10 years, we should not tack on additional 5 years because Person A is a racist. Not unless we're willing to legislate thought. | |||
== Hate crime debate == | |||
We do not need "thought" crime legislation. If you look at any of the recent major incidents of alleged hate crime activity (the poor guy dragged behind a truck in Texas, or the homosexual beaten to death in Wyoming), the communities involved came down very hard on the perpetrators without the need to uphold hate crime statutes. In each case, I believe the perpetrators got a mix of life sentences or death penalties. | |||
I just visited this page for the first time, and noticed up front two comments about "Multiple issues." They were "Tagged since June, 2010." As I write this, the date is May 19, 2010. How can anything be tagged "since" a date in the future? | |||
Bottom line: our system works without injecting politics into our penal code. | |||
George Hannauer | |||
georgehannauer@oberlin.net | |||
] (]) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Proposed Merge== | |||
Remember, Hate Crimes = Thought Crimes | |||
The article ] contains some useful information. However, we don't have articles about ], or ], and I don't think that hate crimes against whites deserve their own article either; it just isn't done on Misplaced Pages. Rather, the contents of that article should be merged, where appropriate, into the established articles ] (general), ] (the section on the US) and ] (the section on South Africa). Any thoughts? ] (]) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Bold text'''I have to agree with whoever started this blog right here... I have always felt that the wikipedia is riddled with liberal clout. Hate crimes are a savage hypocrisy! A vast majority of hate crime convictions go to white males. This is because racsism is tolerated by non-caucasion races in the main stream public. So I agree with you on this matter but I'll tell you, you are wasting your time. Leftist won't listen to reason, they don't seek to eliminate the double standard, just replace it with one of thier own. | |||
:That's right. I agree. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Following the discussion, I have merged contents to ] and ], but I did not find any material to merge here. Thanks. --] (]) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*Asarkees, I think you are mistaking intent for motive. | |||
:Intent: | |||
:"Did you mean to drive your car off the road?" | |||
:"Yes, I did." | |||
:Motive: | |||
:"Why did you drive your car off the road?" | |||
:"Because the passenger was attacking me, and I thought I could stop him by hitting a tree." | |||
:Intent is a legitimate factor to consider in determining the crime of which a person may be guilty (murder or manslaughter?), but motive is an entirely different issue. --] 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Critiquing reliance on the prison industrial complex == | |||
==51 states?== | |||
This subsection of Opposition is completely unsourced (by reliable sources) and puts undue weight on that particular argument. --] (]) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
From the article: | |||
"Seven states have no hate crime laws, twenty states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and twenty-four states have hate crime laws that do include sexual orientation." | |||
== Undisclosed COI == | |||
This adds up to 51, but the US only has 50 states!!! | |||
While was contesting my removal of an EL that he had added to his coworker, I looked into some of the many other ELs that he has added, and found that many of them were to his own blog, those of coworkers and, or colleagues. The EL to Gregory M. Herek's blog, which James Cantor added to two pages seemed not to be conflicted until I noticed that both Herek and Cantor were editors of the same magazine. Thoughts? ] (]) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:We have other stuff, like the district of columbia, guam, puerto rico, etc... ] ] 13:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Doing the Math == | |||
::Oh, so DC must be the 51st. | |||
Hi everyone, | |||
:::Yeah, probably. Anytime they list 51, DC is the 51'st. They want to be a state too, but whatever. ] ] 13:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
I found the following article from Southern Poverty Law Center to be interesting: | |||
::::Actually DC is not the "51st state" there is a wiki article about how part of southern Oregon and part of Northern California planned to create a state called "Jefferson". But typically when you hear that its because someone screwed up and referred to DC as a state when in fact it is a federal territory. ] 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
* <ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/anti-gay-hate-crimes-doing-the-math| title=Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Doing the Math| year=2010| work=Intelligence Report| publisher=]| accessdate=2010-11-28}}</ref> | |||
== POV and Un-PC == | |||
It gives total victimization of target groups in the U.S. population for 1995-2008. | |||
:"''Another argument sometimes advanced by supporters of hate-crime laws is that violent acts motivated by political or similar reasons are characteristic of less-civilized, Third World countries, and must not be tolerated in a developed country, lest the developed country sink to their level.''" | |||
Here are its results in table format: | |||
This to me sounds extremely un-PC, and sounds highly unlikely, moreover making supporters of hate-crime legislation supporters petty and racist. ] 12:05, 11 Nov 2004 (NZT) | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
!scope="col" | targeted group | |||
!scope="col" | percentage of U.S. population (A) | |||
!scope="col" | hate crimes against persons (B) | |||
!scope="col" | percentage of hate crimes against persons (C: B/(sum B)) | |||
!scope="col" | ratio (C/A) | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | homosexuals | |||
| 2.1% | |||
| 15,351 | |||
| 17.4% | |||
| 8.3 | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | Jews | |||
| 2.2% | |||
| not given | |||
| 7.7% | |||
| 3.5 | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | blacks | |||
| 12.9% | |||
| not given | |||
| 41% | |||
| 3.2 | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | Muslims | |||
| 0.8% | |||
| not given | |||
| 1.5% | |||
| 1.9 | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | Latinos | |||
| 15.8% | |||
| not given | |||
| 8.8% | |||
| 0.6 | |||
|- | |||
!scope="row" | whites | |||
| 65.1% | |||
| not given | |||
| 13.3% | |||
| 0.2 | |||
|- | |||
| total | |||
| | |||
| 88,463 | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|} | |||
--] (]) 15:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Color of Crime== | |||
==Sollog accuses Misplaced Pages of hate crimes== | |||
The ]'s pamphlet The Color of Crime, does not deserve a section in this article - it has no relevance to the subject, represent a fringe POV and even mentioning it here is probably undue weight. ] 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Shall we write in a section called "alleged hate crimes", "The seer ] or his fans accuse the website ] of hate crimes because of its inclusion of critical information in an article about him, which Sollog fans consider slanderous. "? ] 23:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
:Non-notable. I tried adding detail about Sollog's interaction with us (and in particular with Jimbo) to Sollog's own article, and it was removed. ] ] 03:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
== So it's okay to commit crimes for fun? == | |||
==Why did SlimVirgin protect the current version of the article?== | |||
But it's not okay if you have a reason? ] (]) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Moving on -- POLL== | |||
:says who? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Examples section == | |||
'''Question:''' In 50 words, more or less, what do you object to, in the article in its present protected state? | |||
I would question whether a well-written, well-referenced section on examples of incidents described as hate crimes would add anything to the article. The 'Examples' section being added to the article is far from that- I'm not about to go out and buy a book, just to find what page either of the dubious examples is discussed on, if they are discussed at all. The silliness about banning intimidation by the homeless as a hate crime is unacceptable without a direct quote. And the section on 'Kick a ginger day' says nothing about any of these incidents being described as hate crimes. Most ] I've spoken to about this episode had a sense of humor about it. ] (]) 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Moreover, despite the fact that the RCMP reportedly investigated the kid who started the group to determine whether he had actually committed a hate crime, . ] (]) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Context on a quote in the "Canada" section == | |||
'''Answers:''' | |||
*It's protected, I think protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. ] 21:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC) | |||
Would someone please check over the concern voiced ? The sentence is a quote, so it's probably relevant to include, but it seems POV when out-of-context—which it currently is in the article. I don't have immediate access to the source (not on Google Books :P ) and am somewhat too busy to look for a physical copy—would someone please either improve on the context for that sentence, or remove it? I've already tagged the sentence in question with a hidden note and a {{]}}. Thanks, <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{]|]|]|]}}</span> 14:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
It was protected against an anon IP who's been causing trouble on a number of articles for weeks using different IP address and user accounts. I've unlocked it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== RfC == | |||
] Show us exactly where that trouble is. That's a highly subjective decision that you made. Protected articles are contrary to wikipedian principles. ] 18:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:So is edit warring and POV editing, which is what protection helps diffuse. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC) | |||
{{bulb}}An RfC: ] has been posted at the ]. Your participation is welcomed. – ] 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
* "Hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society, such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism." | |||
-- "hate crimes" are bogus crimes from a criminal law perspective. E.g. in the case of vandalism hate crime, the crime is damage and the "hate" is the motivation of the crimes which is considered when the crime is prosecuted. "hate crime" is no criminal law term and "hate" is not the crime. You could argue that "hate" is an emotion and you are free to hate what you want. However, you are not permitted to commit a crime which is a different issue. In the case of swastika symbols on a grave you assume that "hate" is the motivating reason. It could well be some sort of disgusting humour or a troll phenonemon, that people want to provoke and they take what provokes. Provocation can also be art, not "hate crime". So it is complicated. "Hate crime" is based on assumptions about the personal motivation. | |||
== Strangely worded sentence. == | |||
== Black on white rape - hate crime? == | |||
"The term "hate crime" is now used more often than in the past mainly because the groups that used to have official endorsement under with intergovernmental and/or armed forces involvement." There's clearly a problem here, but I cant figure out what exactly to change to fix it. ] (]) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
If you look at rape statistics it's pretty obvious that black men enjoy violating white women. I've always thought this should be considered a hate crime. | |||
:I rewrote the History section before I read your post. I couldn't figure it out either, so I simply deleted it. If anyone can figure out what it meant they are welcome to put the information back, with references of course. ] (]) 06:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Discussion regarding the 'n' word(s) == | |||
--Legislation that failed in Congress in 1999 tried to make rape, in general, a hate crime. Perhaps you should worry more about that. | |||
In what countries do people say nig**r acceptably and how so is this even allowed. I thought that i may find for such knowledge here but am asking for further iscussion of interpretations. Is it just a racial problem or a problem of ethnicities and nationalism? How so? Examples? I think that such questions should be adressed as the current article is unclear as to what constitutes it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
--I believe it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Black men are not more likely to rape a white woman, they are only more likely to arrested and convicted. I'm afraid your argument is bunk. | |||
== Can someone please check this change in statistics? == | |||
--I believe it was me who said you're full of it, and can't even begin to prove your (implied) assertion. Of course black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted of rape than white men, but that doesn't support your (implied) assertion, that somehow there's a disparity between actual rapes and arrests and convictions for rape vis-a-vis race of suspect. | |||
Here. Thanks. Ping me please when you do. ] (]) 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Check the victim surveys; blacks actually get away with rape more than whites. | |||
:{{ping|Doug Weller}} The number 9 million LGBT Americans is on the first page of the Williams institute source. However, as the report explains, it's difficult to measure the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBT. The number will also depend on how you define the terms. 9 million refers to those that identify as LGBT, but the report mentions estimates that 19 million Americans have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and that over 25 million acknowledge some same-sex attraction. You could argue about the definition, but 9 million is a lower bound, according to the source, and it's not as low as 5,421,300 which seems to be a number grabbed from thin air. Of course, there are other estimates that might give different numbers but the one we have in the article now seems reliable enough. 9 million is a round number, which is reasonable given the difficulties of defining and estimating the size of the group. Let's not use some mathematical calcuation based on percentages and the current population to come up with some ridiculously exact number like the one that was removed in the edit above. | |||
--80-90% of rapes against women are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994) This does not include Native American women, who are assaulted by caucasian males 78% of the time (Misplaced Pages, 2006). | |||
: As for the victims, I checked the FBI sources and restored the number 7,231. That's the total number of offenses labeled Sexual Orientation less the number labeled Anti-Heterosexual. There's a problem there that means the article might need to be tweaked: the article says ''victims'', but the statistics count ''offenses''. There's not a one-to-one relation between the two, but I think it's close enough to allow calculating a per capita rate. ] (]) 07:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
We can banter back and forth with useless statistics some more if you'd like. Or you can tell me I'm "full of it" again, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you want to make a bigoted comment like that, at least be prepared to back it up. | |||
::Thanks ]. I also thought that the made it up, as they apparently have on other articles, so gave them a 31 hour block. I see they've made a malformed block appeal and somehow managed to transclude something irrelevant from my talk page. ] (]) 07:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:You seem rather confused. Just because black men may possibily be more likely to rape white women then black women doesn't imply any sort of bias. Given that white women are the majority, it is what we would expect if the perps ignore race. If most black rapes are of black women, there is clearly some sort of bias... | |||
== External links modified == | |||
:In practice, it's a very complicated issue. A number of rapists appear to prefer richer women and white are on average richer then blacks. Also, even if blacks to specifically choose white women because of their race, this doesn't necessary imply it's a hate crime. They may do so because they feel white women are easier targets or because they otherwise prefer white women as targets. Unless their reasons are because of some degree of hatred towards whites or white women, their crimed cannot be considered hate crimes by definition. E.g. if they choose white women because they believe white women are bitches who deserve to be punished then it'll probably be considered a hate crime. If they choose white women because black women are bitches who are no fun this can hardly be considered a hate crime even if their actions and beliefs are disgusting. Of course, rapes that are hate crimes do occur and are prosecuted ] 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
-Yeah, this whole argument seems sort of uncomfortably bigoted. Also, a "black on white" rape could be a hate crime, given that the offender's motivation to rape the victim was that she was a caucasion, and was chosen due to the offender's evident and provable hatred towards caucasians. But that doesn't happen a lot. A simple mismatch of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or disability does not a hate crime make. ] 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:4|one external link|4 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
*I don't think the hate crime would really be black on white or white on black I think it would be more male on female. Rape is a very degrading assult that not only may physically damage a woman but psychologically as well. Men use fear and force to demean and degrade a woman they victimize. Also, no matter what the statistics say about whether it is blacks who rape whites more or vice-versa you must remember that a hate crime is motivate by hate for someone because of their race, ethnicity etc. Rape is usually motivated by mental instability, not so much to show hate for the person they are victimizing. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150430112651/http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/17543/8978 to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/17543/8978 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150717214828/https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140709181446/http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_02.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_02.htm | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150622112802/http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
== Intent vs. motive == | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
In ], the state of a person's mind has always been important in determining the fact or seriousness of a crime. The legal concept of ] (] for "guilty mind") is required for most ] convictions. | |||
Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 07:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
If a murder is plotted with malice aforethought, this is classified as ]; if a murder is committed in the heat of a moment, this is classified as ]. Likewise, if the act resulting in death was recklessness or negligence, ] or ] should be the finding. Similarly with ], ] causes one level of crime; ] is more serious. | |||
== New article == | |||
Hate crime legislation extends this principle. In addition to judging ''intent'', ''motive'' is also considered. This extension is not limited to hate crime law; recent anti-terrorism legislation in many countries also considers motive. | |||
] | |||
:I find this section a bit out of place and POV (altho persuasive). I personally support judgement of crime based on Intent and motive, but oppose "hate crime" laws. The reason why is that that as an attractive married male of North Euro ancestry, crimes against ME couldn't be punished in such a way. But if I got into a fight with a black guy, or a turkish guy or whatever, regardless of the reason why, and won, it ''might'' be called a hate crime. There shouldn't be another racist penalty for being a white male, and yet another legal advantage for "minorities" (who in reality are the majority worldwide). ] 22:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
In January 2017, four people were arrested for torturing a ] man in ], after they livestreamed the incident on ].<ref>, NPR, January 5, 2017</ref><ref>, New York Times, January 4, 2017</ref><ref>, CNN, January 5, 2017</ref><ref>, Washington Post, January 5, 2017</ref> The victim was kidnapped, bound, gagged, beaten, had part of his scalp removed with a knife, and was forced to drink from a toilet bowl.<ref>, BBC, January 5, 2017</ref> At least one of the suspects shouted "Fuck Trump" and "Fuck white people."<ref>, Washington Post, Janaury 5, 2017</ref> | |||
Actually, Sam Spade, if a crime was committed against you because of the perp's hatred or bias against your gender or ancestry, you would be protected by most hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are not penalties for being white and male, unless you mean to say that the default state of a white male is to commit crimes against an individual or group due to hatred of or bias against their gender/sexual orientation/etc. Which I sincerely doubt. ] | |||
] (]) 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I think Sam Spade's problem is he or she's getting confused. Predominantly hate crimes are committed by the majority against some minority. Therefore there is the incorrect assumption that hate crimes are only commited against minority. Hate crimes are NOT all crimes against minorities NOR only crimes agaist minories as some people seem to assume. Majorities can have hate crimes committed against them and these have been prosecuted. Hate crimes against heterosexuals (i.e. because they're heterosexuals) are very rare. Hate crimes against the majority race (generally whites in the US) are probably somewhat more common and a number of these have been successfully prosecuted. | |||
{{talkref}} | |||
:BTW, Sam Spade, homosexuals are not the majority world wide. There are also a far greater number of North Europeans worldwide then there are Turks. You seem to have the problem of lumping minorities into one group. In practice, minorities aren't all the same. For example, Korean and Japanese are Chinese are all East-Asian minorities but their cultures are quite different and they don't always get along. | |||
:I think it's too soon to gauge its significance in the grand scheme of things. ] and all. Let's give it some time. ]] 03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Finally I want to add that even if nowadays hate crimes (and I mean real hate crimes not crimes which people say are hate crimes simply because they're commited by a person of a different race or sex or sexual orientation) are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by majorities then if they're commited by minories this doesn't necessarily imply a fault in the laws themselves. It seem far more likely to be a fault in the implementation. Note there is strong evidence that ordinary crimes are far more likely to be successfuly prosecuted if they're commited by poor people then by rich people. At best, you can perhaps try to argue that hate crime law prosecutions are always going be biased in favour of minorities but this seems a bit dubious to me. | |||
== Evaluation of this article == | |||
:] 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
In the "victims of the United States" section, there seems to be a bias on African American hate crimes rather than a broad view of hate crimes committed on all races, sexual orientation, and religion that is shown on the table. There were a few sentences that talked about hate crimes towards LGBTQ people but overall the section mainly focused on African Americans. The section itself is neutral but it lacks to mention any other races such as Asian Americans who are underrepresented in this article over all. Though Asian Americans are not always on the news does not mean that they have not been discriminated and harassed, same goes to every other race, religion, and LGBTQ people. | |||
I don't understand why you've moved it to Talk: It seems informative, NPOV, and accurate regarding the application of hate crime laws. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Also the table that is placed in the section is outdated; the number of hate crimes committed to these people have increased since 2012. | |||
] (]) 20:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
:I concur. | |||
:I think its pretty obvious why I moved it to the talk page. Informative and accurate, maybe. But NPOV it is not. ] 10:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:That section currently begins, "Most hate crimes in the ] are committed against African Americans," citing 2010 FBI statistics. | |||
:It that still true? Has it been true historically? | |||
:It's probably true, but not certain. | |||
:In any event, it would be good to have it updated to discuss an apparent increase in hate crimes since Trump began his campaign for the presidency in 2015. Unfortunately, I likely will not find the time to do it myself. ] (]) 14:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
::I can't quite get my head around the two pages for 2015, see my comments below. ] ] 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
Two points (and I understand this is a long abandoned debate): | |||
1. I think that there is an important diffrence here between the concept of mens rea and hate crimes. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the use of mens rea in a murder case determines the extent to which a person is guilty, and thus the actual level of the crime they are charged with. Hate crimes are seperate from the actual act, making the actual state of mind as a motive illegal. Can people honestly tell me there is nothing disconcerting about that? | |||
2. If whtie men are protected, then how is hate crime legislation not just an attempt to lengthen sentences in general? If every conceivable group is covered against every other group, if you want to, you can find "hate" motivation in a lot of places that would be surprising. | |||
== FBI statistics == | |||
It may help to look at the case of Vincent Chin (http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml), who in 1982 was beaten to death simply because he was asian. He was thought to be Japanese, he was not. His assailants were automakers, or something in that line of work, and were in danger of losing their jobs due to a recession. The two men who killed Chin blamed him and Japanese automakers for the recession and beat Chin with a baseball bat. They referred to him as a "Jap". Are you willing to say that these two men would have beaten Chin regardless of his perceived race? I think that racial hatred/intolerance was the motivation for the murder. Chin was just a scapegoat for these men. | |||
These badly need updating. The latest seem to be 2015. There are two pages of stats with different numbers, so that needs sorting. ] ] 14:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
== WorldNetDaily Article == | |||
== Hate Crime Satistics == | |||
I deleted the WorldNetDaily article because it's a biased conservative website that claims that most reported hate-crime victims are white - and the FBI's own information shows that anti-black hate crimes are over three times as likely as anti-white crimes. They might be getting that information by throwing in anti-Jewish or anti-gay hate crime victims, but if they are, it's misleading. They state that most hate crimes are racially motivated and whites are the primary victims- draw your on conclusions about what they're implying. | |||
Crimes in general are broken into catagories, but can not find Hate Crimes broken down. Believe these numbers are important, yet no factual numbers on Wiki. Just percentages used and all Hate Crimes are lumped in one pile of data. Can this issue be researched? Or admit the data provided by FBI is unclear? Not disputing hate crimes, just need numbers broken down and not only by group impacted. Thank you. ] (]) 16:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
You can see those FBI statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm | |||
== External links modified == | |||
:I would request that you re-insert the link to the article. You may not like what they write, but the No-Bias policy does NOT apply to external links. You are obviously biased against conservatives - great, I have no problems with that. But you won't be allowed to censor external links just because you don't like them. | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
::I removed it because it was misleading. End of story. Liberal articles that are misleading should also be deleted from Misplaced Pages whenever they're found. | |||
I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
:Additionally, it is absolutely pointless to request us to make up our own opinions - you took that possibility away by removing said link. Why should we trust you more than WorldNetDaily, whatever that is? --] 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513164532/http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/msracequality/greece.pdf to http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/msracequality/greece.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001050247/http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf to http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825214959/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/09-AggPrej/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/09-AggPrej/index.htm | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614124916/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517030446/http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28459%3Afbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics&catid=1%3Alatest&Itemid=197 to http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28459%3Afbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics&catid=1%3Alatest&Itemid=197 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610125417/http://www.aei.org/speech/17122 to http://www.aei.org/speech/17122 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041024015252/https://www.fbi.gov//ucr/ucr.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
::I meant make up your own conclusions (here in the talk page) as to why WorldNet put it up there and why it is inappropriate to include it in an encyclopedia. Blog it if you want. The article had to much spin to be included. | |||
::It would have taken yout wo seconds to find the article if you tried: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48898 --says white's more likely to be vicitms based on FBI stats, but the FBI says according to the FBI link above: | |||
Anti white crimes: 829 | |||
Anti black crimes: 2,731 | |||
the only way they can say that white's are more likely to be victims of hate crimes is if they show that hate crimes motivmated by reasons other than race are the factor that caused the crime. The article makes no mention of that. It is either too biased or not written well enough to be included. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
== Why was "Distinguishing Features of Hate Crimes" Removed? == | |||
This section was removed, and I think it should be reinstated. Opinions? Edits? | |||
*] 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Moroveus | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Let's be real here== | |||
The ] does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, hate crime laws do not vary significantly between different jurisdictions. Most states have approached hate crime legislation by creating penalty enhancements for pre-existing crimes when those crimes are committed because of the victim’s protected minority status. Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status. | |||
While the hate crime definition used by the FBI for purposes of crime statistics includes sexual orientation, disability, and gender as protected categories, this is not the case for all hate crime laws. Most jurisdictions include race, religion, ethnicity, and gender as protected classes for purpose of hate crime statutes, while some states also include disability and sexual orientation. As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in ], protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. There have been two attempts in 2001 and in 2004 to amend the current federal hate crime law to include homosexuals. Currently, these attempts have been unsuccessful. | |||
________________________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
"Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes." | |||
The citation that would presumably be relevant to this sentence makes no such arguments. The "some" being referred to are comedian TV writers in an episode of South Park. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
"The ] does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, " | |||
== External links modified == | |||
I have removed the first sentence of section. The Model Penal Code has not been updated since 1981, and is an abhorant source to cite for some areas of the law (for example, under the MPC's "recommendation" for rape law, any man and woman living together as husband and wife, regardless of legal status, and regardless of violence involved in the offense, cannot constitute a rape offense). Furthermore, the Model Penal Code is NOT a "standard." It is merely a suggested text published by the American Law Institute - and in this case, which has not been republished since 1981. (Anonymous, Philadelphia, PA) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
*Shouldn't this be considered "History of Hate Crimes," and distinguishing characteristics be things more along the lines of "a weapon is more likely to be used," "more likely to be perpetrated by a group of offenders" and "more likely to result in grievous bodily harm?" All of which are true, by the way. . ] 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
== Aren't We Supposed to be Debating About the Article, Not Debating About the Issue? == | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331011308/http://www.ravnopravnost.hr/web/184/ to http://www.ravnopravnost.hr/web/184/ | |||
You are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't supposed to argue it on the Editing Page. If you want to add the against section, go ahead, instead of coming to the Editing Page, where you are supposed to ''be figuring out what to put in the article, not declaring to the world your opinion'' | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311053343/http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+55%2F2007&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD to http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+55%2F2007&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172327/http://www.ihfhr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=3860 to http://www.ihfhr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=3860 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012020416/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
==Adding a See Also section== | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
At the moment there isn't a "See Also" section, I am adding one now (I am still working on my disadvantages section (trying to avoid directly copying my source is difficult)). I will be starting it off with Cartmans Silly Hate Crime 2000. Your thoughts? ] 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Yeah. This is Misplaced Pages, not Southparkepdia. We don't need to include a reference to South Park in every article which is about a subject mentioned in South Park. Or The Simpsons. Or Spongebob. Or whatever. The fact that South Park based an episode on hate crimes is totally unimportant to the subject of hate crimes. --]] 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
**I can see your point, but the episode in question does clearly outline some of the arguments '''against''' hate crimes, and some opinions based around it. Until this article is made balanced I think it should stay. Also, I know the wiki-page itself doesn't have much on this, the episode in question does, as such I felt a link was adequete. I mean whats the difference between a TV Show and a website illustrating the point with a form of fable? People just don't take TV seriously! ] 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
***"Balanced"? If you think the article needs some "balancing" do it with fact, not parody. --]] 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Hypothetical Situation == | |||
== Etymology == | |||
Say you found some incoming emails on your girlfriends e-mail acount from a guy that you know who looks hispanic. Is it a hate crime if you send an e-mail back with racial comments but are motivated by him hitting on your girl quite heavily. | |||
Replys or edits please. | |||
*A '''crime''' must be committed for it to be considered a hate '''crime'''. Sending an e-mail with ethnic slurs in it is not a crime. ] 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
But, if it were, yes. Hate Crime refers primarily to motive. | |||
] 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Even though it is not an article about racial violence, but rather about the legal / cultural term "Hate Crime", | |||
== NPOV the "Against" section == | |||
Nowhere in the article does it say why it is called a "hate crime", and it isn't a trivial question - the term reflects particular politics, and is very far from being a technical description of a type of crime. | |||
The "Against" section is non-NPOV (it doesn't actually mention the serious, contemporary criticism of hate crime legislation). Parts of it are near-nonsensical: "There are some scholarly arguments that provide reason for opposing "hate crimes" as currently imposed in some legislative forms in the United States. However, these arguments are largely theoretical and are not necessarily reflective of the respective philosophies cited for support." What on earth does that second sentence *mean*? ] (]) 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Even in the History section there's no real history, just a brief "it appeared in the 80s", and then an arbitrary account of racial violence events in history. | |||
*Then, for god's sake, change it. This is Misplaced Pages. You can. ] 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
* What was the first time a hate crime was judged as such? | |||
I believe the author is referring to Kant and Bentham. Its been a while since I studied criminal law (public contracts practice now). | |||
* What social changes led to the term being adopted? | |||
* What is the debate about the term, about what things fall under it and what don't and why, | |||
* Why do hate crimes in many jurisdictions carry increased sentences, what rational was guiding legislators in making it so, what are the effects of this legislation on crime statistics and all that. | |||
* What's even the connection between specifically '''hatred''', and inter group violence based on ethnic, religious, sex and other differences? | |||
Seriously, it's a weird term, it's very interesting how it came to be and what it means, it's even very special as a language thing - it's almost as if it came from Orwell's newspeak and should actually be written as hatecrime, like thoughtcrime, sexcrime, etc. | |||
James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics (Oxford University Press, 1998) should probably be mentioned here as a scholarly critique.--] 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Compared to other Misplaced Pages articles, there seems to be a significant part of the article's essence missing. | |||
== THE "AGAINST" ARGUMENT: CONFLICTS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT == | |||
== Why not address bias in enforcing hate crime laws, and fake hate crimes? == | |||
It is (humorously) claimed that blacks cannot commit hate crimes. Funny, but humor tends to have a core of truth. https://u.osu.edu/huang.2130/2014/09/18/humor-is-a-way-of-telling-the-truth/ Shouldn't this article cover that truth, not just of blacks, but in fact all sorts of discrimination in the enforcement of hate-crime laws? Generally, there are indeed biases about the enforcement of hate crimes, and the incidences of fake hate crimes. Tawana Brawley was a very early example in about 1986 or so. The Duke Lacrosse team case was another, from about 2006. Google 'fake hate crime' for an eye opener. Just found this: http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ ] (]) 05:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
Besides the fact that hate crimes are mostly prosecuted against whites, while "black on white" crime is 96% of the cross-race crime in the U.S. (according to the FBI), the most obvious argument against hate crimes legislation is for preservation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: | |||
:Can you provide ]? I've not heard of "fake" hate crimes before. ] ] 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Motive or Intent == | |||
Amendment I | |||
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. | |||
In the subsection ], we state that "In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes...allow courts to consider motive when sentencing". I'm not sure whether we mean ] or ]. Motive has to do with the criminal's background and, possibly, upbringing; intent is more immediate -- the state of his mind just before he committed his crime. | |||
Basically, "freedom of speech" is inclusive of "freedom of thought", and any hate crime legislation is an infringement upon both. Hate crimes legislation is "thought crimes" legislation, and an attempt at telling individuals what they can or cannot think; a legislation of societal behavior just outside the bounds of criminal activity. | |||
If we do mean intent, we should change the above text to read "consider ] when sentencing". If the Supreme Court actually allows the lower courts to consider motive then we should change the second sentence in the ] article to read "Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime <u>(except hate crimes)</u>;". | |||
Here's the basic scenario: | |||
I'm doing some research into ''Mitchell'' but if anyone knows the answer, you can save me some time. I'm adding this discussion to the talk page of ] as well. --] (]) 16:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
Person A commits a violent hateful crime. | |||
Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. | |||
Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties. | |||
== Middle East in Sidebar == | |||
Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. | |||
Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes"). | |||
Small edit, but lack permissions to do it - Middle East is formatted one level too deep, and so shows under the "South America" section. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Hate crimes (thought crimes) legislation is politically motivated and is an attempt to label people with opposing views and to use legislation to limit their views. This is not unlike the recent scenario of a British writer who landed 3 years in an Austrian prison for writing a controversial book on the Holocaust. He didn't support the popular view of what happened, so they tried and sentenced him to prison FOR WRITING A BOOK! Basically, the tenet behind "hate crimes" legislation is "think like we do or go to jail." | |||
== Removed from article == | |||
Perhaps just as the Left has attacked 2nd Amendment freedoms (with some progress), they have now turned their attention to limiting 1st Amendment freedoms. | |||
I removed the following text from the article: | |||
{{quote|The ] and the ] were not classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials or the media.}} | |||
This was then followed by a sentence stating that multiple conservative commentators had said these crimes constituted black-against-white hate crimes, something which was not supported by the cited source. As far as I can see, without the remark about the commentators, this sentence is a mere un-cited hook to hang the commentary off, and I've removed it as it no longer logically belongs in the section without its context. -- ] (]) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
== misogynistic terminology "forcible rapes" == | |||
'''---End unsigned user comment---''' | |||
In the Hate Crimes Laws section for the United States, mention is made of "...forcible rapes...". | |||
:: Agreed. If you remove the variables of intent, malice and damage as noted above then nothing remains of 'hate crimes' except 'thought crimes'. There has yet to be a solid counter-argument that 'hate crimes' (removed from the context of the physical act itself) are any more a crime than offensive speech is. Tolerance is a good thing, but you can't have tolerance without understanding. You can't have understanding without debate. How can you have debate with restrictions of free speech? The 1st Amendment does NOT outlaw speech based purely on offensiveness. I hope that most of the people in this discussion are aware of the 'proper time, place and circumstance' considerations. Be that as it may, 'hate crimes' and other such feel good laws are having a crushing effect on free speech. There are many countries in the Western world that will get you thrown in jail for debating Holocaust authenticity/statistics, questioning the morality/sustainability/whatever of homosexuality and so on. Why not debate these concepts in the marketplace of ideas instead of saying "we can't talk about that". Hate crime laws, while placed on the books with good intentions are landing people in jail for simply 'thinking' thoughts contrary to popular trends. | |||
Are there non-forcible, consensual types? | |||
Is this acceptable terminology? It is misogynistic language used by some Republican politicians, should it be repeated here? | |||
What is the author trying to say here? | |||
] (]) 23:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:In the , "Forcible Rape" is the official term for the Part I offense and is defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included". The "forcible" prefix is done primarily to distinguish the offense from statutory rape incidents committed without the use of force. There's an argument to be made that all rape incidents occur as part of a social power differential, but there is legitimate reason for using the terminology in regards to the law, at least. ] (]) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
''Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.'' - General Colin Powell (I don't endorse or condemn Powell, but this is an excellent point he makes.)--] 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
--------------------- | |||
== For instance this scenario is untrue: == | |||
>>>>>Once more you are debating hate crimes, not the content of the article of hate crimes. Most people on here are not actually debating what is a hate crime versus what is not; they are instead debating what they 'think' is a hate crime in their mind, then creating scenarios that are untrue based on hate crime definitions. | |||
For instance this scenario is untrue: | |||
Person A commits a violent hateful crime. | |||
Person B commits a similar violent hateful crime, but is a known racist and perhaps shouted a few racist epithets during the commission of the crime. | |||
Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties. | |||
Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. | |||
Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, basically 10 years for the crime plus 5 years for being a racist. That extra 5 years is punishment for Person B's unpopular beliefs (i.e., "thought crimes"). | |||
== It should read more like this example: == | |||
Person A commits a violent hateful crime against a man who ''happens to be'' gay. | |||
Person B commits a similar violent crime, specifically against the man ''because he is'' gay. | |||
Assume both crimes show equivalent levels of malice and damage to innocent parties. | |||
Person A gets sentenced to 10 years in prison. | |||
Person B gets sentenced to 15 years in prison, because the crime was against both the individual and a 'societal' group. | |||
Specifically relating to a current situation: Say a US-born radical fundamental Muslim American decides he is angry against the United States, and then he takes out his rage by attacking a person on their way to church, specifically because they were, or he believed them to be, a Christian. Regardless of the charges for the crime, he would additionally be charged for a hate crime. This situation specifically where a Christian is not a minority, and the attack was against a group though perpetrated on an individual. | |||
--] 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)--] 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Super creepy follow-up to my previous post. This news story hit the Reuters wire today that illustrates my example. | |||
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Police stepped up security at Seattle synagogues and mosques on Saturday, a day after a Muslim man who said he was angry at Israel shot dead one woman and wounded five others at a Jewish center. | |||
Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, burst into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon. He surrendered without a struggle and police arrested him on charges of murder and five counts of attempted murder with bail set at $50 million. | |||
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said authorities are treating the shooting as a hate crime based on conversations with police during the rampage. | |||
"He said that he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people (Muslims) were being mistreated and that the United States was arming Israel," said Kerlikowske, who thinks Haq acted alone and is not part of any terrorist groups. | |||
"He pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all these problems." | |||
Police officers circled Seattle's Seward Park area, the city's traditional Jewish neighborhood and home to three major synagogues. Uniformed guards stood outside Bikur Cholim-Machzikay Hadath and Sephardic Bikur Holim synagogues. | |||
"There is high security," said Robin Boehler, chairwoman of the Jewish Federation. "This is the thing we dread the most happening." She added three of the victims were not Jewish. | |||
==Incorrect Information in this article== | |||
"Hate Speech" is not a crime in the United States of America. It is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the article should be changed. | |||
:Certain kinds of ] are deedmed illegal in certain parts of the US... | |||
:'''California, USA laws may declare hate speech is protected in public, but allows easy prosecution for alleged hate crimes, in verbal form as well in physical form. California law claims hate speech at the workplace does not constitute as "protected speech" and employers have the right to terminate or discharge those who committed hate speech on workplace grounds.;;; | |||
:...And outside of the US, ] is illegal in a grear many forms in a large number of countries. The opening sentence gives a number of types of hate crime, and hate speech can indeed be a hate crime. ] 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Actually, no. There isn't a single place in the United States in which "hate speech" is illegal. And any attempts to create such laws have been soundly beaten down by the first court that they confronted. The California law that you meant regards a civil matter, not a crriminal matter. And while I do understand that this article refers to world-wide laws, I feel that it is important to point out that "hate speech" is only a hate crime in some of them. - Lewis Ranja | |||
== White Power is Redundant > Refer to Racisim Link == | |||
] has reverted back to added in ] to the see other links. ] already addresses ], ], ] and so on. I don't see the point of dumping in all of the other "power" movements into this Hate Crime page, so leaving in just the White Power one is either slanted or incomplete. At the risk of starting an edit war I wish to state my intention of removing the White Power and any other "Power" movements from the See Other section. It is already amply covered under racism and is repetitive.--] 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Crap == | |||
As an Italian, I think this "hate crime" garbage is racism. What about if some black panther members decide to go out at night and murder a white lady? Is that just murder? Seems like hate to me. If we want to become a unified nation, first we must throw one sided racism like this in the garbage! Anyone ever think that a white guy or whoever is "white" in your false categorization in the US can be a murderer that happened to murder blacks? Everyone is so quick to point to race as the factor, but when it's the other way around, you can be called a racist for voicing that perhaps black panther members murdered this white lady because of her race. This is why I think it's unfair to Americans as a whole, trash it. "Latinos" aren't even a race, the US and their political correctionism is very laughable, LOL! First you consider south Americans a race when they are nothing but south Americans with some euro blood, then you call them "latino" to bluntly insult my ancestor Romans? Very nice. ] 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:42, 2 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hate crime article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.perales1121.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TylaE28.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgarcia98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Iran
I have a concern with this section. The individual country sections are detailing hate crime laws/legislation in those countries, where the entry for Iran talks about actions of the state against homosexuals. This material seems much more suited to Human rights in Iran. Kevin (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- If there are no objections I will move/merge the material as above. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I object. It's relevant because of Iran's presence in the media regarding their hate crimes against gays. Their own President saying "There aren't any homosexuals in Iran" was all over the news, world wide. The section on Iran's torture and killing of gay Iranians speaks to how it deals with hate crimes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a source describing their actions as a hate crime, rather than a human rights abuse? My view of hate crime is more related to individuals and/or groups actions toward others, rather than a governments actions toward it's citizens. Kevin (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone else? Kevin (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like it would be relevant to both topics to me. LadyofShalott 05:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone else? Kevin (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a source describing their actions as a hate crime, rather than a human rights abuse? My view of hate crime is more related to individuals and/or groups actions toward others, rather than a governments actions toward it's citizens. Kevin (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I object. It's relevant because of Iran's presence in the media regarding their hate crimes against gays. Their own President saying "There aren't any homosexuals in Iran" was all over the news, world wide. The section on Iran's torture and killing of gay Iranians speaks to how it deals with hate crimes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Has it already been moved or is it the last paragraph with many refs on it? -- Banjeboi 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's the last paragraph with many refs on it. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Has it already been moved or is it the last paragraph with many refs on it? -- Banjeboi 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a concern with the entire section. It is supposed to be a section that describes the laws in the nation dealing specifically with hate crimes. None of the sentences do that, neither the ones referencing the constitution nor the ones that describe Iran's human rights record.
Look at all the other nation's entries. Each describes the state of hate crime enhancement laws, or the lack thereof, in the country. Iran just looks like someone added the consitution entries to make Iran look good in this light, and then others added the human rights record to debate that. Really, all of this material should be removed and replaced with specific information on hate crime punishment in Iran, of whatever form they might have.--joeOnSunset (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I pared down the whole section. Most of the consitution references don't deal with hate crimes. I kept the one that came the closest, so as not to have to blank the entire section. I have been unable to source any material that deals directly with the topic of hate crimes protections in Iran. --joeOnSunset (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Revisiting this, I now suggest removing the entire Iran section. Here's why: a nation does not necessarily have laws related to hate or bias crimes they way they are defined in this article. There is now already a list growing in this article naming such countries. The section of the Iran constitution quoted plainly does not relate to bias crimes. I have been unable to find ANY information from a secondary source about such legislation in Iran (for two years, see above.) So I've removed the section. Anyone wishing to bring it back should just please find a cite that's on-topic. --joeOnSunset (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Change to lede: perceived membership
I have changed the following sentence in the lead:
- Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group,
to
- Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group,
Hate crimes are generally defined according to motive. A gay-bashing does not become less a crime directed against gay people, for instance, just because the victim is a heterosexual mistaken for a homosexual. --TS 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Israel
Why isn't Israel on the list? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1104506.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcovitaly (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Canada in Eurasia
Got to be merged with Canada in its right place. 217.195.19.145 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merged Canada into North America section. Per WP:CYCLE, I've made a few adjustments to the use of double and single quotes and attached references to each quote. I felt the two sentences regarding Section 319 were redundant and have merged them together as well. Feel free to re-word. Ruodyssey (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Homeless
I removed the section about hate crimes against homeless persons (added here) for several reasons, none challenging its validity. All of its links are now dead, so it lacks a Reliable Source. This subsection was copied and pasted into both this article and Hate crime laws in the United States, where it would be more appropriate anyway. Hate crime#US is meant to be a Summary, so this just adds Undue Weight. More to the point, the section was added by the indefinitely banned sockpuppet Drutton57 and can be removed for this reason alone. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
White-On-White Hate Crimes
A court in the United States has found that a white-on-white (or any same-race) crime can still be prosecuted as a racially motivated incident if the attacker was motivated by the victim's being in an interracial relationship. I'm not quite sure how to work this in, though (should it get its own section in this article, or should there be a separate article for same-race racially motivated violence?) Any advice would be welcome. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The second ref may not be an RS, so it's a shame the first is so short. I'd recommend adding this tidbit into a subsection of Hate crime laws in the United States instead of here once we have some more informative refs -- maybe as this case plays out. Ruodyssey (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- There has been an increase of what would be called "hate crime" incidents over other social group status: Italians, Polish people, Mormons, French speaking Canadians, Southerners and Irish people. For example, to make an ethnic joke or claim "these people are so and so" can qualify as "hate speech" therefore an act of racial, sociocultural or ethnic group hatred. I'm not joking around here, this is serious since a person comes up to you and make fun of your group/background like they are "mafioso, polacks, polygamous or wackos, too stupid to speak English, rednecks or drunks/pagans". + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is "hate speech" a "hate crime"? No.
Hate crime | Hate speech |
---|---|
A "hate crime" is a criminal matter. A "hate crime" has two elements: (1) a subsumed crime, e.g., assault, and (2) the perpetrator's hatred of the victim. The perpetrator hates the victim because the victim belongs (or is believed to belong) to some hated group. The perpetrator's hatred may be manifested by "hateful speech," by his graffiti, by his tattoos, or by other means. A "hate crime" has a higher penalty than the subsumed crime. | "Hate speech," in matters of law, is not the same as "hateful speech." Hate speech is an offense which may be a criminal matter or a civil wrong or both. Where hate speech is an offense, it is an offense by itself; hate speech does not need any other criminal behavior to accompany it. Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is offensive to some group that the law protects. Hateful speech does not amount to hate speech unless a protected group takes offense. |
PYRRHON talk 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hate speech should not be included in Hate Crimes, based on constitutional decisions that have been noted in my removal. Hate speech, as opposed to speech that constitutes "fighting words" is protected as defined in Misplaced Pages's article on the subject of "hate speech" This was reverted when I amended this sentence on the "hate crime" page, which I will challenge and request a decision from administratorsArodb (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles should have a ||WP:GLOBAL|global perspective]] as far as possible. You introduce a US perspective in the lead. A US perspective is OK to mention in the parts that discuss the specific situation in that country, but putting it in the lede puts undue weight on the law in one country. This is especially problematic as the US law regarding hate speech is unique. Sjö (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Canada
I removed the opinion which introduced the section on Canada because "An encyclopedia is a collection of facts" not opinions (See WP:Writing better articles.), and because the opinion deals with hate speech although this article is about hate crime. I removed the information about hate propaganda because that information is a matter of hate speech not hate crime. (Matters of hate speech are at Hate speech laws in Canada.) I quoted the hate crime provision of Canada's Criminal Code to show how hate crime provisions are worded. I deleted the mention of Canada's civil laws against discrimination because those laws are not a matter of hate crime. PYRRHON talk 16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hate crime debate
I just visited this page for the first time, and noticed up front two comments about "Multiple issues." They were "Tagged since June, 2010." As I write this, the date is May 19, 2010. How can anything be tagged "since" a date in the future? George Hannauer georgehannauer@oberlin.net 208.66.211.248 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Merge
The article Hate crimes against white people contains some useful information. However, we don't have articles about Hate crimes against black people, or Hate crimes against Asians, and I don't think that hate crimes against whites deserve their own article either; it just isn't done on Misplaced Pages. Rather, the contents of that article should be merged, where appropriate, into the established articles Hate crime (general), Hate crimes in the United States (the section on the US) and South African farm attacks (the section on South Africa). Any thoughts? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. I agree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Following the discussion, I have merged contents to Hate crime laws in the United States and South African farm attacks, but I did not find any material to merge here. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Critiquing reliance on the prison industrial complex
This subsection of Opposition is completely unsourced (by reliable sources) and puts undue weight on that particular argument. --70.128.125.237 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Undisclosed COI
While James Cantor was contesting my removal of an EL that he had added to his coworker, I looked into some of the many other ELs that he has added, and found that many of them were to his own blog, those of coworkers and, or colleagues. The EL to Gregory M. Herek's blog, which James Cantor added to two pages seemed not to be conflicted until I noticed that both Herek and Cantor were editors of the same magazine. Thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Doing the Math
Hi everyone,
I found the following article from Southern Poverty Law Center to be interesting:
- <ref>"Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Doing the Math". Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-28.</ref>
It gives total victimization of target groups in the U.S. population for 1995-2008.
Here are its results in table format:
targeted group | percentage of U.S. population (A) | hate crimes against persons (B) | percentage of hate crimes against persons (C: B/(sum B)) | ratio (C/A) |
---|---|---|---|---|
homosexuals | 2.1% | 15,351 | 17.4% | 8.3 |
Jews | 2.2% | not given | 7.7% | 3.5 |
blacks | 12.9% | not given | 41% | 3.2 |
Muslims | 0.8% | not given | 1.5% | 1.9 |
Latinos | 15.8% | not given | 8.8% | 0.6 |
whites | 65.1% | not given | 13.3% | 0.2 |
total | 88,463 |
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Color of Crime
The New Century Foundation's pamphlet The Color of Crime, does not deserve a section in this article - it has no relevance to the subject, represent a fringe POV and even mentioning it here is probably undue weight. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So it's okay to commit crimes for fun?
But it's not okay if you have a reason? 71.212.210.137 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Examples section
I would question whether a well-written, well-referenced section on examples of incidents described as hate crimes would add anything to the article. The 'Examples' section being added to the article is far from that- I'm not about to go out and buy a book, just to find what page either of the dubious examples is discussed on, if they are discussed at all. The silliness about banning intimidation by the homeless as a hate crime is unacceptable without a direct quote. And the section on 'Kick a ginger day' says nothing about any of these incidents being described as hate crimes. Most coloured people I've spoken to about this episode had a sense of humor about it. Nevard (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover, despite the fact that the RCMP reportedly investigated the kid who started the group to determine whether he had actually committed a hate crime, he was never charged. Nevard (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Context on a quote in the "Canada" section
Would someone please check over the concern voiced over on Yahoo! Answers? The sentence is a quote, so it's probably relevant to include, but it seems POV when out-of-context—which it currently is in the article. I don't have immediate access to the source (not on Google Books :P ) and am somewhat too busy to look for a physical copy—would someone please either improve on the context for that sentence, or remove it? I've already tagged the sentence in question with a hidden note and a {{context-inline}}. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 14:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
RfC
BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Strangely worded sentence.
"The term "hate crime" is now used more often than in the past mainly because the groups that used to have official endorsement under with intergovernmental and/or armed forces involvement." There's clearly a problem here, but I cant figure out what exactly to change to fix it. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I rewrote the History section before I read your post. I couldn't figure it out either, so I simply deleted it. If anyone can figure out what it meant they are welcome to put the information back, with references of course. Sjö (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the 'n' word(s)
In what countries do people say nig**r acceptably and how so is this even allowed. I thought that i may find for such knowledge here but am asking for further iscussion of interpretations. Is it just a racial problem or a problem of ethnicities and nationalism? How so? Examples? I think that such questions should be adressed as the current article is unclear as to what constitutes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.119.156 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please check this change in statistics?
Here. Thanks. Ping me please when you do. Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: The number 9 million LGBT Americans is on the first page of the Williams institute source. However, as the report explains, it's difficult to measure the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBT. The number will also depend on how you define the terms. 9 million refers to those that identify as LGBT, but the report mentions estimates that 19 million Americans have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and that over 25 million acknowledge some same-sex attraction. You could argue about the definition, but 9 million is a lower bound, according to the source, and it's not as low as 5,421,300 which seems to be a number grabbed from thin air. Of course, there are other estimates that might give different numbers but the one we have in the article now seems reliable enough. 9 million is a round number, which is reasonable given the difficulties of defining and estimating the size of the group. Let's not use some mathematical calcuation based on percentages and the current population to come up with some ridiculously exact number like the one that was removed in the edit above.
- As for the victims, I checked the FBI sources and restored the number 7,231. That's the total number of offenses labeled Sexual Orientation less the number labeled Anti-Heterosexual. There's a problem there that means the article might need to be tweaked: the article says victims, but the statistics count offenses. There's not a one-to-one relation between the two, but I think it's close enough to allow calculating a per capita rate. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Sjö. I also thought that the made it up, as they apparently have on other articles, so gave them a 31 hour block. I see they've made a malformed block appeal and somehow managed to transclude something irrelevant from my talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hate crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150430112651/http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/17543/8978 to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/17543/8978
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150717214828/https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140709181446/http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_02.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_02.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150622112802/http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 07:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
New article
In January 2017, four people were arrested for torturing a learning disabled man in Chicago, Illinois, after they livestreamed the incident on Facebook. The victim was kidnapped, bound, gagged, beaten, had part of his scalp removed with a knife, and was forced to drink from a toilet bowl. At least one of the suspects shouted "Fuck Trump" and "Fuck white people."
Bk33725681 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- 4 Charged With Hate Crimes Over Beating Live-Streamed On Facebook, NPR, January 5, 2017
- 4 Questioned After Video Shows Racially Charged Beating in Chicago, New York Times, January 4, 2017
- Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests, CNN, January 5, 2017
- Hate crime charges filed after ‘reprehensible’ video shows attack on mentally ill man in Chicago, Washington Post, January 5, 2017
- Four charged with hate crime for Chicago Facebook Live attack, BBC, January 5, 2017
- What makes a crime a ‘hate crime’? And would the Chicago attack qualify?, Washington Post, Janaury 5, 2017
- I think it's too soon to gauge its significance in the grand scheme of things. WP:Not news and all. Let's give it some time. —PermStrump(talk) 03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of this article
In the "victims of the United States" section, there seems to be a bias on African American hate crimes rather than a broad view of hate crimes committed on all races, sexual orientation, and religion that is shown on the table. There were a few sentences that talked about hate crimes towards LGBTQ people but overall the section mainly focused on African Americans. The section itself is neutral but it lacks to mention any other races such as Asian Americans who are underrepresented in this article over all. Though Asian Americans are not always on the news does not mean that they have not been discriminated and harassed, same goes to every other race, religion, and LGBTQ people. Also the table that is placed in the section is outdated; the number of hate crimes committed to these people have increased since 2012. FBI 2015 hate crime statistics Sgarcia98 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I concur.
- That section currently begins, "Most hate crimes in the United States are committed against African Americans," citing 2010 FBI statistics.
- It that still true? Has it been true historically?
- It's probably true, but not certain.
- In any event, it would be good to have it updated to discuss an apparent increase in hate crimes since Trump began his campaign for the presidency in 2015. Unfortunately, I likely will not find the time to do it myself. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't quite get my head around the two pages for 2015, see my comments below. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
FBI statistics
These badly need updating. The latest seem to be 2015. There are two pages of stats with different numbers, so that needs sorting. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hate Crime Satistics
Crimes in general are broken into catagories, but can not find Hate Crimes broken down. Believe these numbers are important, yet no factual numbers on Wiki. Just percentages used and all Hate Crimes are lumped in one pile of data. Can this issue be researched? Or admit the data provided by FBI is unclear? Not disputing hate crimes, just need numbers broken down and not only by group impacted. Thank you. Ruth31ess (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Hate crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513164532/http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/msracequality/greece.pdf to http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/msracequality/greece.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001050247/http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf to http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825214959/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/09-AggPrej/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/09-AggPrej/index.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614124916/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517030446/http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28459%3Afbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics&catid=1%3Alatest&Itemid=197 to http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28459%3Afbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics&catid=1%3Alatest&Itemid=197
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610125417/http://www.aei.org/speech/17122 to http://www.aei.org/speech/17122
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041024015252/https://www.fbi.gov//ucr/ucr.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's be real here
"Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes."
The citation that would presumably be relevant to this sentence makes no such arguments. The "some" being referred to are comedian TV writers in an episode of South Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:4056:11D:D472:E058:C9BF:E028 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hate crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331011308/http://www.ravnopravnost.hr/web/184/ to http://www.ravnopravnost.hr/web/184/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311053343/http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+55%2F2007&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD to http://217.71.145.20/TRIPviewer/show.asp?tunniste=HE+55%2F2007&base=erhe&palvelin=www.eduskunta.fi&f=WORD
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172327/http://www.ihfhr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=3860 to http://www.ihfhr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=3860
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012020416/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Etymology
Even though it is not an article about racial violence, but rather about the legal / cultural term "Hate Crime",
Nowhere in the article does it say why it is called a "hate crime", and it isn't a trivial question - the term reflects particular politics, and is very far from being a technical description of a type of crime. Even in the History section there's no real history, just a brief "it appeared in the 80s", and then an arbitrary account of racial violence events in history.
- What was the first time a hate crime was judged as such?
- What social changes led to the term being adopted?
- What is the debate about the term, about what things fall under it and what don't and why,
- Why do hate crimes in many jurisdictions carry increased sentences, what rational was guiding legislators in making it so, what are the effects of this legislation on crime statistics and all that.
- What's even the connection between specifically hatred, and inter group violence based on ethnic, religious, sex and other differences?
Seriously, it's a weird term, it's very interesting how it came to be and what it means, it's even very special as a language thing - it's almost as if it came from Orwell's newspeak and should actually be written as hatecrime, like thoughtcrime, sexcrime, etc.
Compared to other Misplaced Pages articles, there seems to be a significant part of the article's essence missing.
Why not address bias in enforcing hate crime laws, and fake hate crimes?
It is (humorously) claimed that blacks cannot commit hate crimes. Funny, but humor tends to have a core of truth. https://u.osu.edu/huang.2130/2014/09/18/humor-is-a-way-of-telling-the-truth/ Shouldn't this article cover that truth, not just of blacks, but in fact all sorts of discrimination in the enforcement of hate-crime laws? Generally, there are indeed biases about the enforcement of hate crimes, and the incidences of fake hate crimes. Tawana Brawley was a very early example in about 1986 or so. The Duke Lacrosse team case was another, from about 2006. Google 'fake hate crime' for an eye opener. Just found this: http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:69CA:E689:966C:1A0 (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can you provide reliable sources? I've not heard of "fake" hate crimes before. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Motive or Intent
In the subsection Hate crime#Support for and opposition to hate crime laws, we state that "In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes...allow courts to consider motive when sentencing". I'm not sure whether we mean motive or intent. Motive has to do with the criminal's background and, possibly, upbringing; intent is more immediate -- the state of his mind just before he committed his crime.
If we do mean intent, we should change the above text to read "consider intent when sentencing". If the Supreme Court actually allows the lower courts to consider motive then we should change the second sentence in the Motive (law) article to read "Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime (except hate crimes);".
I'm doing some research into Mitchell but if anyone knows the answer, you can save me some time. I'm adding this discussion to the talk page of Motive (law) as well. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Middle East in Sidebar
Small edit, but lack permissions to do it - Middle East is formatted one level too deep, and so shows under the "South America" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F10E:100:A971:537:B4E9:E9A2 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Removed from article
I removed the following text from the article:
The murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre were not classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials or the media.
This was then followed by a sentence stating that multiple conservative commentators had said these crimes constituted black-against-white hate crimes, something which was not supported by the cited source. As far as I can see, without the remark about the commentators, this sentence is a mere un-cited hook to hang the commentary off, and I've removed it as it no longer logically belongs in the section without its context. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
misogynistic terminology "forcible rapes"
In the Hate Crimes Laws section for the United States, mention is made of "...forcible rapes...". Are there non-forcible, consensual types? Is this acceptable terminology? It is misogynistic language used by some Republican politicians, should it be repeated here? What is the author trying to say here? RSTate (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the FBI classification scheme, "Forcible Rape" is the official term for the Part I offense and is defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included". The "forcible" prefix is done primarily to distinguish the offense from statutory rape incidents committed without the use of force. There's an argument to be made that all rape incidents occur as part of a social power differential, but there is legitimate reason for using the terminology in regards to the law, at least. Kidmax (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Top-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press