Lesbian who alleged Nebraska hate crime charged with lying about attack

reply to post by Agarta

"It is important not to focus on the actions of any single individual. As residents of Lincoln we must continue to bring our community together to declare that violence and hate are not the values of our city."

It is precisely this type of double speak that so turns peoples' stomachs...making it very difficult for people to come to a basic position of willingness for acceptance...Most people are not even willing to consider a position of acceptance and the bottom line is most people will not without a clear condemnation of wrong headed behavior. Statements like this one SUCK and indicate there is some sort of excuse for what she did. The fact of the matter is what she did was totally inexcusable.

So if you fake a hate crime, should you be punished with a hate crime? I think so....

reply to post by Agarta


I'm really impressed that you changed your position to some extent and had the maturity and respectfulness to state so. Its a rare thing on the internet to actually be able to convince somebody of anything, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and ability to tinker with your own opinions in a nuanced way.

Thank you!

I updated the original thread here

When the story broke yesterday...apparently no one noticed....new thread was a good idea?

What really happened is probably somebody said something about her she didn't like, so she made up this story to get revenge. Just like women who falsly claim domestic abuse.

reply to post by FailedProphet

Well, see, this is where you or I disagree. I don't think it matters whether he stole the watch because he wanted the watch or because he wanted to make you feel bad about your race. The watch is stolen either way, that's the crime, and that's what should be punishable.

But one has deeper social consequences and, if un-checked, has the potential to destabilise the very foundations of society (in my humble opinion)

Many people attach this almost metaphysical importance to issues of identity - race, gender, sexual orientation. There is an assumption that somebody's motives based on these things make the crime worse than the motives of somebody stealing (or raping, or killing) out of other motives like simple greed. I simply don't think that's true. The governement shouldn't be in the business of legislating some crimes worse than others for these reasons. I'm calling emperor's new clothes on this whole way of thinking.

I would argue that the one attaching the metaphysical importance to the issue of race, gender and sexuality is the one who does the hating. The other is a victim who was minding their own business until some decided that they didn’t like them because of that race\gender\sexuality.

I understand what you are saying... murder is murder... and once you are dead you are dead... However, although this is true, it’s not as simplistic as that. We are highly evolved social creatures. We have a heightened sense of identity and self worth. If we ignore this side of us, and only consider the physical aspects of a crime, then we are ignoring one of the most fundamental parts of being Human.

Also, if the victims and authorities ignore this side of the crime... it will never be truly dealt with... understanding the motive behind a crime is the key to rehabilitating offenders.

Peace

reply to post by Muckster


I don't mean to interrupt your conversation here, but I would like to address this statement from a U.S. stand point. I say this because It has been so long since I have lived in England or the EU for that matter that I do not remember how the prison systems work.

understanding the motive behind a crime is the key to rehabilitating offenders.

The problem with this is that there is very little rehabilitation left in the U.S. prison system today, especially when it comes to race and gender identity.

Yes there are programs that teach a trade or the possibility of obtaining an education, but that is about as far as it goes towards the rehabilitation of inmates. Almost all prisons in the U.S. are self segregating and in many, it is encouraged, behind the scenes. The problem is so bad and has been left unchecked for so long it has become the norm to the point where, in 2008, California decided to see what would happen, as an experiment, by purposely desegregating a single prison.

There are a few prisons here that self segregation was not allowed from the very beginning. An example of this is the Nebraska State Penitentiary. A neighbor of mine has worked in 9 different prisons around the country, all of which were self segregating. They were so accustomed to the non written rules of this type of situation that when they took a position at the NSP and moved here, were too afraid of the inmates, retired from their position and began working for the City jail due to not being able to handle the concept of a non segregated prison.

Rehabilitation went out of the prison system about the time they began to privatize. Looking at this, we can begin to understand it was no longer about the rehabilitation of the inmates so much as lining the pockets of the private companies running them. The concept of rehabilitation has given way to punishment and thus being considered a deterrent. This has failed as well as, although they are incarcerated and must follow a schedule of lock down(confined to cells), eating, and yard(being able to mingle in common areas) the inmate rights are almost as free as outside the walls not to mention, most of prison education is how to commit crime provided by other inmates.

The excuse given by the privatized prisons as to why rehabilitation is on the back burner is that there are not enough psychologists in order to address every inmates issues. Personally, I feel it is the lack of process that is the main contributor and the mentality of "If we fix their thoughts they wont repeat and thus less income" which explains part of the serious issue of prison overcrowding throughout the country.

reply to post by Agarta



Hey no worries, it’s an open forum you’re not interrupting

What an interesting and insightful post... Thanks

I had no idea that the American prison system was that bad... I have seen a couple of documentary’s on US Prisons but always took them with a pinch of salt (can't always trust what you see on TV)

I think that the entire subject is worthy of a thread of its own... I also think that you seem to be the best person to start it. Let me know if you are interested, if not i may put something together of my own and, with your permission, use some of the information you have provided.

Thanks again

Peace

reply to post by Muckster


I am actually pretty busy at the moment so if you feel so inclined please do begin the thread. If you choose not to I can do it in a month or so.

This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

So this woman decided she'd further her cause by faking a "hate" crime. But in actuality she's furthering hate of the very people she wants to accuse of her plight. So she must be charged with a hate crime, her entire goal was to get people to hate those people who supposedly hate her. Her motivation was discord, not healing, but anger, pain, manipulation, control and so on. The people who believed her story were inspired to hate, so this must be a hate crime, as her entire motivation was hate based.

But should she be blamed? There are two tried and true ways to accomplish things on earth; killing or rising to supreme victim. She chose the latter to further some bizarre agenda which is no different then many others who act like 7 year old's running to mommy with the, "he called me a name," battle cry to get their way. A nation ruled by hurt feelings is possibly the low in human history.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

My point exactly.

Now, the law recognizes "mitigating circumstances" in terms of motivation. Like if a man breaks into a drugstore to steal a drug that he can't afford in order to save his dying daughter's life, the judge is allowed to go easier on him than a case in which a junkie breaks into the same drugstore to get his fix. But extending this to matters of "identity" (race, sexual preference, etc.) and political motivation is a very tricky thing and, in my opinion, this is beyond the scope of the law. It takes us into Orwell-land.

Fact is, its not illegal to hate somebody because they are gay or a different race or whatever. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's covered by freedom of speech and thought. So using this as a criteria to make a punishment more severe than a case in which the same crime is committed without the "hate thoughts" is fundamentally illogical and unfair. Then there is the issue of what and who are covered by this "hate law" stuff. Race is covered. Being a homosexual is covered. But are these the same thing? And where do you draw the line? What about attacking somebody based on their political views being different from you? Who decides this stuff, and based on what? We are entering very mushy territory here, letting feeling and emotion take over from reason.

We can't crawl into people's skulls and determine their motivations with absolute certainty, and the courts and the law shouldn't be trying to do this and weighing certain thoughts and ideologies as more worthy of punishment than others. Crimes should be punished on the basis of acts, not thoughts.

reply to post by silent thunder


Geez , is She Even a Lesbian to begin with ? Maybe some Guy should try and Kiss Her and Find Out the Real Truth !..........

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by crankyoldman
This speaks to the whole "hate" crime thing. The hate crime thing equals motivation for an act, crime or otherwise, as an excuse to imprison even more people. I can't think of anything more nuts then using motivation as determined by others as the reason to imprison a person or worse. For myself, I can't even understand why anyone cares who she has sex with.

My point exactly.

Now, the law recognizes "mitigating circumstances" in terms of motivation. Like if a man breaks into a drugstore to steal a drug that he can't afford in order to save his dying daughter's life, the judge is allowed to go easier on him than a case in which a junkie breaks into the same drugstore to get his fix. But extending this to matters of "identity" (race, sexual preference, etc.) and political motivation is a very tricky thing and, in my opinion, this is beyond the scope of the law. It takes us into Orwell-land.

Fact is, its not illegal to hate somebody because they are gay or a different race or whatever. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's covered by freedom of speech and thought. So using this as a criteria to make a punishment more severe than a case in which the same crime is committed without the "hate thoughts" is fundamentally illogical and unfair. Then there is the issue of what and who are covered by this "hate law" stuff. Race is covered. Being a homosexual is covered. But are these the same thing? And where do you draw the line? What about attacking somebody based on their political views being different from you? Who decides this stuff, and based on what? We are entering very mushy territory here, letting feeling and emotion take over from reason.

We can't crawl into people's skulls and determine their motivations with absolute certainty, and the courts and the law shouldn't be trying to do this and weighing certain thoughts and ideologies as more worthy of punishment than others. Crimes should be punished on the basis of acts, not thoughts.

edit on 8/23/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)

There is a more fundamental problem with the execution of the hate law concept. What happens in the US is you are arrested and THEN the DA figures out what he can charge you with, not the other way around. So in essence, motivation becomes an issue only if it helps convict = get money, and not is a real part of the crime. As you pointed out, the drugstore robber gets the hate crime tag if he's got a facebook post that suggests he "hates" white folks and, low and behold, the drugstore owner is white, so they DA says," 2+2= 1347!" I know a few DA's and the issue isn't what the crime is, or who as truly hurt by the action, but what you can charge them with and make stick - get the most income from via fees, fines or prison. Hate crime tagging will make almost anything stick, not matter how disconnected from the crime itself.

We have always lived an orwellian life, we just didn't know it, but at this point the robots have reached the point where headlines can only be had by the most egregious notions and attaching laws to them. This woman sought to grab headlines not because she's actually a victim of anything but self hatred (btw, is that a crime?) but because she's learned that the more egregious the action, the more attention - she's a very good study. It is inevitable now that everyone winds up in jail as there is no one pure enough of thought to pass the judgment created by the millions of laws we have already when the ingredient of hate crime is added.