Hate crime was created because racist juries would not

[patdem]

prosecute rascist crimes!!! That was the purpose for creating the hate crimes legislation!!! I read the other thread and there was no historical reference to the reason it was even created!!!

If the local jury who was a part of the local racist community would not judge fairly..the federal government could then prosecute under the hate crimes law!

I believe it should only be used when there is proof that the local jurists will not act!...In fact...I would have liked to OJ prosecuted under a Hate Crime...he hated Whites???...Women??? Whatever!!!!

[clintonlover]

1. OJ

was married to a white woman. actually he dated only white women..so how could he have hated them.....

[DrWeird]

2. Nevermind.

I guess in the context of the ridiculous OP its not that bad.

[patdem]

3. Well, I think killing her proved HATRED???

And since the jury refused to prosecute reality...that is when hate crimes laws kick in!

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Hate crime is a misnomer, you know....

The correct term is bias crime and it has a specific definition. It is when the victim is chosen based on being percieved as a representative of a culture/race/religion/sexual orientation, etc....

One could argue that lots of people kill people they hate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bias crime.

If I hated my brother and killed him, it's would not be a bias crime. I would be killing him because we have a personal enmity.

[atreides1]

5. But

He didn't hate her because of her skin color. And it's not all the jury's fault either, the prosecution wasn't that great with their case.

Me, I would have made sure that none of my witnesses had anything questionable in their background, like Mr. Furman and his concepts of racial harmony. I mean come on, how hard did the prosecutor's office really work on this case.

Personally, I don't know if he did it, or if he didn't, eventually he'll have to answer to a higher power, that's my belief.

[noiretextatique]

13. he was prosecuted by the district attorney

the jury acquitted him of the the charges he was being prosecuted for.

as you note, this happened quite a lot before white americans realized racism was a bad thing, particularly in the south. during the OJ furor, two other murder cases were quietly decided: medgar evers' murderer was finally convicted and the birmingham bombers were (four little girls died in the bombing) also finally convicted. it only took 40+ years to get convictions.

i'm not sure the OJ verdict was really a case of jury nullification, though clearly many people think so. and if it was, his celebrity and money had a lot to do qwith the acquittal, which is similar to verdicts in other cases involving celebrities.

i doubt the OJ case is a harginger of the kind of jury nullification ("the way of life") that made bias crime legislation necessary.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

6. Prosecuting OJ for murder was plenty.

ANY murder is a "Hate Crime" by default.

That being said, he is only free today due to a racist jury.

[DrWeird]

7. LOL. It was a racist jury.

That and the planted evidence and that racist, prejuring investigator just didn't try hard enough.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

9. The planting of evidence was never proven...

...not even close.

And the fact that Furman made some recordings using the n-word and disparaging blacks in a disgusting manor is no reason to assume he would later plant evidence when he had NO IDEA WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE FUCKING CRIME!!!

Educate yourself and you'll be less inclined to make foolish statements.

[DrWeird]

10. Maybe you should educate yourself.

The famous "Simpson DNA evidence" was missing the tamper proof seal.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

11. Oh please...

Are you seriously trying to make the case that OJ didn't do this?

If so, please surrender your drivers license and any firearms you may own to the nearest sane person.


LOL!!



And if you're interested in not looking foolish, answer this question...It's a simple yes or no answer (You won't be able to)...


Furman was on the scene shortly after the crime took place. In order for him to feel comfortable in framing OJ (Drop the glove), he would have had to have KNOWN OJ did it, and they wouldn't later discover it was someone else...Otherwise he would have faced the death penalty for framing someone of a capital crime. Do you REALLY think he HATED OJ, the most non-black, black guy on the planet, enough to take that life and death risk???

Yes or no, please...

[DrWeird]

12. No.

I'm not saying OJ didn't do it. I'm saying there's reasonable doubt.

[noiretextatique]

14. i do not believe this is allowed

to say the jury acquitted based on reasonable doubt. convention wisdom says it was jury nullification of the kind that happened a lot with all-white juries when the victim was black and the accused was white. but as far as i know, a trend requires more than one instance of an occurence before it can be assumed to be a real trend.

as much as the race card was played in the simpson case, i believe his celebrity and money played a bigger role in influencing the jury than his race. then of course, they could have just thought there was reasonable doubt too.

[DrWeird]

15. This is the same conventional wisdom...

that looked the other way with the Rodney King verdict.

I'm saying is, there's reasonable doubt with the Simpson case. That there's no reason to assume the jury was racist. And that the crime in question is a ridiculous example of a "hate crime."

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

16. Personally...

...I think Rodney King was beaten because he was a scumbag, not because he was black.

Not that that reason makes it right, but it makes it easier to understand.

[DrWeird]

18. LOL.

nt

[noiretextatique]

22. must be kismet or something

i just addressed the tendency to dimiss videotaped evidence against the defendants in the king case, while insisting that resonable doubt couldn't possibly apply in the simpson case.

[DrWeird]

26. Hey thanks.

I learned a new word today. Kismet. Kismet. Definitely kismet.

[Djinn]

24. the cops were also scumbags

can I hog tie them and have a few of my mates help ne beat them with batons?

As far as I know cops aren't allowed to hand out punishment beatings to people they think deserve them.

[noiretextatique]

21. a thing i've noticed about this conventional wisdom

it reserves the right to define what a thing is or isn't, and its definition is definitive. the classic example of course is: what is and is not racism, and/or what is and is not considered a racist act, statement, etc. at any rate, i don't anticipate a real trend of jury nullification of the kind some believe the OJ verdict signaled...that's the undercurrent i was responding to.
i wonder if there was as much discussion and outrage when the verdict in the medgar evers murder case was first announced as when the simpson verdict was announced?

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

17. I don't see how there can be...

...To believe there is a reasonable doubt is to believe the cops planted the evidence...And in my previous post, I explained why that was pretty much impossible (Or at least VERY stupid).

The jury was racist...They sent a message. Which, based on the way blacks have been treated in this country througout history, is understandable...I just find it unfortunate that OJ, a guy who shunned the black community for 50 years, benefited from it.

[noiretextatique]

25. what message did they send?

i am always curious about this when people say it.

[Djinn]

23. I think OJ did it

but I would never have voted for guilty had I been on the jury - I could not have been sure beyond a reasonable doubt given the LAPD's shithouse investigation and their rampant racism.

Also it's not unkown for cops to plant evidence fairly early on in the chain of events - and OJ would ALWAYS have been the first suspect, even if there wasn't a history of domestic abuse in ANY murder the spouse is instantly in the frame, because nine of of ten times they're the ones that did it.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Not really true.....

Some murders are done to cover up a crime.

Murder for hire is less about hate than greed.

Any murder is an act of VIOLENCE to be sure...but that does't mean the motive was hatred.

[mark414]

19. like the infamous Selma, AL church bombing

where the four little black girls were killed

the guy who did it just died a couple weeks ago, after being in prison for only a couple of years

it's not like they didn't know who did it, they did

but no one would prosecute him for it

[Misunderestimator]

20. I'm just wondering how many hundreds of times hate-crime needs to be ...

explained here. :eyes:

In your scenario we should leave it up to the government to decide on individual cases whether or not to prosecute under the hate crimes law. We leave it to them to decide whether the jury is going to be biased or not. Utter crap...