Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Al Doggity on June 22, 2010, 08:28:31 AM
-
Hmmm, interesting to see the comments on this one
Prosecutors Using Broad Definition of Hate Crimes
In the public’s imagination, the classic hate crime is an assault born of animus against a particular ethnicity or sexual orientation, like the case of the Long Island man convicted last month of killing an Ecuadorean immigrant after hunting for Hispanics to beat up.
But in Queens since 2005, at least five people have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, committing a very different kind of hate crime — singling out elderly victims for nonviolent crimes like mortgage fraud because they believed older people would be easy to deceive and might have substantial savings or home equity.
And this month, Queens prosecutors charged two women with stealing more than $31,000 from three elderly men they had befriended separately after noticing them walking alone on Woodhaven Boulevard, using their credit to pay for dental work and, in one case, asking for money to buy a kidney on the black market. The women, Gina L. Miller, 39, and Sylvia Johns, 23, of Flushing, were charged with grand larceny as a hate crime.
This approach, which is being closely watched by prosecutors around the state, has won Queens prosecutors stiffer sentences, including prison for criminals who could otherwise go free, even after draining an elderly person’s savings. Without a hate crime, theft of less than $1 million carries no mandatory prison time; with it, the thief must serve for a year and may face 25.
The legal thinking behind the novel method is that New York’s hate crimes statute does not require prosecutors to prove defendants “hate” the group the victim belongs to, merely that they commit the crime because of some belief, correct or not, they hold about the group.
“Criminals that prey on the elderly, they love the elderly — this is their source of wealth,” said Kristen A. Kane, a Queens assistant district attorney.
Led by Ms. Kane, who runs a specialized elder fraud unit, the efforts have made the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, a leader in finding new uses for hate crime laws, prosecutors in other jurisdictions say. Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys’ Association, said he had not heard of another office using hate crimes as Queens does.
Neither had Kate Hogan, president of the state District Attorneys Association. But she looked into the efforts after hearing about it from a reporter, called it “an epiphany” and said she would suggest it to the group’s committee on best practices. Some New York prosecutors, who asked not to be named because they did not intend to criticize colleagues, said that while the approach intrigued them, they were waiting to see if convictions were overturned on appeal before trying it.
The strategy has never been tested in appellate court; many of those charged have pleaded guilty, waiving their right to appeal. But Queens trial judges have upheld it against defense lawyers who argue that the hate crime charges are inappropriate.
Some people concerned about the prevalence of more classically understood bigotry say that new uses of the hate crime law could ultimately dilute its power. The main purpose of the law, said Steven Freeman, legal affairs director at the Anti-Defamation League, is to stiffen penalties for crimes that inflict additional fear on marginalized groups like ethnic or religious minorities or gays; tougher penalties for crimes against the elderly, pregnant women or children can be imposed with separate “vulnerable victims” laws.
New York’s law is ambiguous. It says prosecutors must prove only that a crime was committed “because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.”
But the language that opens the legislation clearly focuses on hate: “Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs.”
For Ms. Kane, there is no debate. “We don’t have a whole lot of tools,” she said. “We should utilize what the legislature has given us.”
It all started with Sunshine. That was the nickname of Nancy Jace, who bilked five elderly men out of $250,000, pretending to romance them and persuading them to pay for fictitious family emergencies. Ms. Kane was frustrated when Ms. Jace, 37, pleaded guilty in 2004 and served just six months in jail.
When a similar defendant came along, Ms. Kane had an idea. Shirley Miller, 43, who hoodwinked four elderly men out of $500,000, became the first New Yorker charged with grand larceny as a hate crime against the elderly. She pleaded guilty and served four months, but would have faced one to three years if she had not paid $175,000 in restitution. In 2006, Sherry Kaslov, 30, pleaded guilty to similar charges; she served four months and was hit with 10 years of probation.
Those sentences may not sound huge, Ms. Kane said, but the hate charge gave her extra leverage in plea bargaining. By winning felony pleas and probation, prosecutors ensured that repeat offenders would receive strong sentences.
The cases kept coming. In 2006, Natasha Marks, 20, was convicted of swindling more than $1 million from an 86-year-old man as a hate crime, including taking out a $550,000 mortgage on his house; a fugitive, she faces two to six years. Wando Delmaro was sentenced to 10 years after pleading guilty to a hate crime: posing as a water-company employee and distracting elderly people while accomplices burglarized them.
The next year in Brooklyn, a high-profile case bolstered Ms. Kane. Michael Sandy, a gay man, died after robbers chased him into traffic. One defendant testified that he was gay. The judge ruled that he could still be charged with a hate crime since prosecutors said he went after Mr. Sandy believing gay men were easier to rob. Jurors convicted him but later complained that they did not think the hate crime applied.
Then there was Alexandra Gilmore, 37, who took $800,000 from Artee McKoy, 93, a retired barber and old friend of her late father who had Alzheimer’s disease. She stole his house and tricked him into refinancing another, taking the money and eventually sending both properties into foreclosure. She pleaded guilty last year and is serving two to six years.
Maria Thompson, Mr. McKoy’s daughter, wanted Ms. Gilmore to get even more time. Her father died in 2008, and she is still struggling in court to get control of his estate. In the meantime, the house where she grew up is foreclosed and padlocked. She cannot enter to sort her father’s possessions or find a photograph to remember him by. She has no idea if she and her four siblings will ultimately inherit any equity in the home, which had been fully paid off before the scheme.
Mr. McKoy’s own kindness inspired the scheme, said Ms. Thompson, 69, who works as a greeter at Wal-Mart. When Ms. Gilmore’s father died, he lent her money to avoid foreclosure of her own house, revealing that he had savings, “and then she ripped him off,” Ms. Thompson said.
Ms. Kane got another crack at Ms. Jace. She is now serving 8 to 24 years for defrauding a series of landlords, a sentence stiffened by her plea to the earlier hate crime. Ms. Kane did not charge one this time.
“Most victims were elderly,” she said a bit ruefully, “but not all.”
-
"Hate Crimes" laws have always been an extremely dangerous proposition. I am against this nonsense 10000%
-
I think the theory behind hate crimes is solid, but they have always been instituted poorly. I think this is an abuse.
-
I think the theory behind hate crimes is solid, but they have always been instituted poorly. I think this is an abuse.
I disagree. Why should it matter why someone did something as opposed to the act itself?
Why should someone who assaults someone of a different race get a stiffer sentence than someone who assaults someone of the same race?
-
Hate crimes legislation is the most dangerous thing ever passed as far as criminal prosecution goes.Its really intended to put whites behind bars.No one knows whats inside someones head.Whats the difference if I kill someone for 25 dollars or because they are black.The victim is dead either way.
George Bush was knocked because he was against hate crimes legislation especially in the Byrd case.But Bush didnt need some stupid extra law,he put them to death.Now,Im not for the death penalty,but certainly,putting criminals to death,sort of makes the extra charge of a hate crime seem silly.
-
Why should a crime be judged differently because of being motivated by hatred against another race, sexuality, etc... As opposed to being motivated by hatred of someone who ran you off the road, fucked your wife, etc...
Why?
-
I disagree. Why should it matter why someone did something as opposed to the act itself?
Why should someone who assaults someone of a different race get a stiffer sentence than someone who assaults someone of the same race?
Because it's an act of terrorism.
-
Because it's an act of terrorism.
What?
Example One:
Let's say I am a Italo-American living in Morris Park, Bronx, N.Y. I become pissed off that Albanians are moving in on Arthur Ave. and Williamsbridge Road and taking over pizza parlors, etc.
I say something stupid, not racially or ethnically related and it turns into a fight. We beat the hell out of each other and the Albanian guy dies on the street. NO HATE CRIME
Example Two:
Let's say I am a Italo-American living in Morris Park, Bronx, N.Y. I become pissed off that Albanians are moving in on Arthur Ave. and Williamsbridge Road and taking over pizza parlors, etc.
I say something like "fuck you blockheads from that third world hell hole and all your nasty women" and it turns into a fight. We beat the hell out of each other and the Albanian guy dies on the street. HATE CRIME
________________________ _______
Either way the guy is dead.
-
As I said earlier, I don't think hate crimes laws, as they are most often instituted now, make a lot of sense.
However, to me, that doesn't apply to the second example you posted.
In your example, you selected a guy to get into it with based almost entirely on race. It's an altercation you initiated, it escalated and you were stupid enough to voice your racist opinions. In your example you selected a violent crime victim based on race. You weren't just getting into a fight, you were making a political point. That's terrorism.
Prosecuting something based on motive is not unprecedented and the most direct way of ascertaining motive in violent crime is using what the assailant actually says.
-
As I said earlier, I don't think hate crimes laws, as they are most often instituted now, make a lot of sense.
However, to me, that doesn't apply to the second example you posted.
In your example, you selected a guy to get into it with based almost entirely on race. It's an altercation you initiated, it escalated and you were stupid enough to voice your racist opinions. In your example you selected a violent crime victim based on race. You weren't just getting into a fight, you were making a political point. That's terrorism.
Prosecuting something based on motive is not unprecedented and the most direct way of ascertaining motive in violent crime is using what the assailant actually says.
No its not race - we are both white! How far do we go with this?
-
No its not race - we are both white! How far do we go with this?
::) Fine, then nationality. I guess the Holocaust was a Holy War.
-
As I said earlier, I don't think hate crimes laws, as they are most often instituted now, make a lot of sense.
However, to me, that doesn't apply to the second example you posted.
In your example, you selected a guy to get into it with based almost entirely on race. It's an altercation you initiated, it escalated and you were stupid enough to voice your racist opinions. In your example you selected a violent crime victim based on race. You weren't just getting into a fight, you were making a political point. That's terrorism.
Prosecuting something based on motive is not unprecedented and the most direct way of ascertaining motive in violent crime is using what the assailant actually says.
Ok,what if a black guy robs me and as he is doing it he screams"Im poor guy,Im taking your shit".Is that a hate crime?What if he yelled "give me the money you white guy".
-
Ok,what if a black guy robs me and as he is doing it he screams"Im poor ####,Im taking your shit".Is that a hate crime?What if he yelled "give me the money you white ####".
Then you'd probably be labeled a racist for not helping a poor man of a disadvantaged minority.
Crimes directed towards whites never count as hate crimes.
-
Never been a fan of these "thought" crimes. Completely unnecessary.
-
Ok,what if a black guy robs me and as he is doing it he screams"Im poor ####,Im taking your shit".Is that a hate crime?What if he yelled "give me the money you white ####".
I'm not sure if that would qualify as a hate crime under the laws as they are now, but if the point you're trying to make is that the black guy is unlikely to be prosecuted and that that's unfair, then I agree with you. As I posted upthread, I think the laws are applied poorly now and this article shows that they are moving in the wrong direction.
-
I'm not sure if that would qualify as a hate crime under the laws as they are now, but if the point you're trying to make is that the black guy is unlikely to be prosecuted and that that's unfair, then I agree with you. As I posted upthread, I think the laws are applied poorly now and this article shows that they are moving in the wrong direction.
Sorry,then make it a white guy.If a white guy is robbing a black guy and he says "give me your money bitch" thats not a hate crime,but if he says "give me the money you f'n ni##er"then its a hate crime.I got arrested for an argument.During the argument I called the guy a f'n spick.The arresting officer was going to charge me with a felony hate crime.The only reason I got charged with a lesser charge[disturbing the peace]was because another cop said "there was no threat and therefore no hate crime".But both agreed had I said "I will beat your ass you f'n spick" then it would have been a hate crime.Why?
-
Thug, 36, is charged with punching 68-year-old Sri Lankan immigrant in face while yelling 'you (bleeping) Asian' on NYC subway
UK Daily Mail ^ | March 22, 2021 | Keith Griffith
Posted on 3/22/2021, 8:43:40 AM by C19fan
A 68-year-old man Asian man has been violently assaulted on the New York City subway by an assailant shouting racial insults, in the latest shocking incident of anti-Asian hate.
Narayange Bodhi, originally from Sri Lanka, was commuting to his job as a security guard at 2.40pm on Friday when the attacker viciously punched him on a 1 Train in Lower Manhattan, police and witnesses say.
Suspect Marc Mathieu, 36, of the Bronx was arrested on Sunday and charged with assault after NYPD Transit cops recognized his image on a wanted poster. Mathieu has nine prior arrests, a police source told DailyMail.com
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
________________________ __
GTR!
-
Either apply it equally or not at all. As it is only whites are charged with hate crimes. Dat in itself be racist
-
Nothing to see here folks....
Please move along...
crickets from the MSM
-
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names are a hate crime.
-
I've always had mixed feelings about calling a murder a hate crime
What is a more hateful act that murdering someone...regardless of the reason?
-
I've always had mixed feelings about calling a murder a hate crime
What is a more hateful act that murdering someone...regardless of the reason?
Classic movie line: "If you truly love me then promise you'll kill me."
-
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article250117119.html
Unbelievable. I wonder when the liberal left wing pos media will classify the many many many instances like this a hatecrime.