Man Arrested in California on Hate Crime Charges for Defacing Torah with Swastikas.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Hate-crime arrests in Torah desecrations at Californian Synagogue
July 27, 2007, 8:33 PM EDT

NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he defaced a Torah by tearing out the pages and scrawling swastikas upon it.

Earl Jones of Sacramento was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he had any business at the synagogue. A message left at the Jones home was not immediately returned.

The Jewish holy book was found destroyed and covered in slurs at Sacramento's Temple Beth El by a rabbi on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book later on Nov. 21, police said...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,1670859,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

I'm just curious about how many people would say this arrest would be ridiculous. Or how this wouldn't be a hate crime.

[MADem]

1. Where does VANDALISM fall in the scheme of offenses?

I think they ought to get him on tresspassing, vandalism, bulglary, B and E, whatever one can throw at him, and give him the max in both fines and jail time on each charge (separate counts for each offense) AND require that he pay full restitution plus pain and suffering, AND a massive fine before he's released from parole.

Hit him in the pocketbook. HARD. An asshole like that views being accused and convicted of a "Hate" crime something to be PROUD of. He might not be so proud if he needs to pay out his ASS for his actions before he can earn any measure of freedom.

[youngdem]

4. Hate crimes are thought crimes and should be rejected by any real Democrat

Just charge him with the underlying crime - trespass and vandalism. Anything else is attempting to discern a thought crime.

You don't know why he did this. Pretending you do, and further, pretending it matters - is UNAMERICAN.


This is also an assault on equal protection. Under Hate Crime legislation, some are 'more equal than others' perversely in pursuit of equality.

Just prosecute the underlying crime.

[MADem]

5. My point is the opposite of that--that charging him with said THOUGHT CRIME will be a badge of honor

for him. Vandalizing a valuable book doesn't have the same cachet as "Being mean to the Jews" and tossing a Quran down a toilet and being charged with destruction of private property and vandalism of a plumbing fixture doesn't carry the same cachet as "Being mean to the Muslims" either.

I say hit them in the pocketbooks, and charge them with very pedestrian-sounding offenses. Don't give them the rush they seek...

[KittyWampus]

7. the Law clearly has it within its scope, consideration of motive and intent.

It's why there is murder/man-slaughter.

[Kingshakabobo]

8. Thought crime? Bullshit.

"You don't know why he did this"

We MAY or MAY NOT be able to PROVE his motivation - IN A COURT OF LAW - either by witnesses, previous acts, statements or, get this, HIS OWN ADMISSIONS! Yes, assholes like this tend to roll-over on themselves.......yes, they do. It's not brain surgery. If it can be proved, TO A JURY'S SATISFACTION, he gets convicted. If it can't be proved, he walks.


"pretending it matters - is UNAMERICAN"

Why do you hate America and her two hundred years old system of jurisprudence? Motivation doesn't have to be proved but it is OFTEN taken in to consideration for charging and sentencing when it CAN be ascertained. It always has been.

"some are 'more equal than others"

Bullshit. EVERYONE is protected by these statutes. EVERYONE. Gay people, straight people, people of color, white people, religious people, non-religious people, women AND men.

Nowhere in the statutes does it say ONLY gay people or ONLY Jews or ONLY people of color are covered.........It's a right-wing myth that this law makes some people a different class of citizen. EVERYBODY is covered under these laws. The only difference is SOME PEOPLE are more likely to be victimized.

[youngdem]

9. Really?? Bullshit:? Then riddle me this

Can someone commit SOLELY vandalism with a swastika, or MUST it be a hate crime?

Of course some juvenile idiot could write it all over the wall, or in a bible, or on a Torah.

So would that be a hate crime? Of course not. What a stupid question.

Then how can you tell? Ahhhhh, it IS a thought crime.

I don't condone actions based on hate, but really, ALL CRIMES are hate crimes.

I don't agree with creating additional punishments to provide extra protection at the cost of civil liberties when you could just as easily charge them with the underlying crimes instead.

Besides, it is a slippery slope. After all, it could become VERY easy for someone speaking ill of Jews to be charged with hate speech, then it is a short trip to condemning ALL ill speech against Israel as hate speech (indeed some on this very site have already adopted this position), then you get right to the point where it becomes a crime to speak out about the possible, partial motivations for our actions in the Middle East.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Kingshakabobo]

10. I'm not going to argue the above posted crime/article because......

a.) I don't know anything about the crime.

b.) I think vandalism is among the weakest of the hate crimes.

I think hate crimes should be confined to violence, threats of violence and intimidation.

I don't know why it's SO hard to grasp the concept that MOTIVATION has ALWAYS been considered when charging and sentencing crimes.


"""Then how can you tell? Ahhhhh, it IS a thought crime."""

It is almost laughable that people parrot right wing myths that we don't seek to "see a persons mind" or get inside their head when we seek to convict someone of a crime.

One of the STANDARDS of criminal/civil law is some thing called "mens rea" or guilty mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).

I'm not saying mens rea is the same as motivation. I'm pointing this out to counter the RIDICULOUS "thought crime" bullshit tossed around here.

[jody]

2. And "Man arrested in NY on hate-crime charges for throwing Quran in toilet"

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1466417

[msongs]

3. would the toilet be charged if it threw the book back nt

[Parche]

6. Torah, Torah, Torah

Good movie

[coffeenap]

11. There aren't pages in a Torah. Link? nt

[LisaL]

12. I think it's some sort of parody on the Quran in the toilet story.

Dear OP, did it take you long to come up with it?
Jeez.

[LisaL]

13. Is it against the rules here to change the story into something

it is not, but pretend it's real? And as already been pointed out, you can't tear the pages out of torah.
As for Stanislav and alleged Quran flashing, I am sorry, I think it's wrong to charge him with hate crimes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Why is it wrong to charge him with hate crimes?

Would you feel the same if he vandalized a synagogue?