Badmovies.org Forum

I think I want to vomit...yet, again.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/navarrette.killing/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Perhaps the charges have something to do with the murderers (and that's what every damn one of them are) being under 18, but it just seems like the legal system, much like our American society of late, is just too sympathetic when a crime is committed in the name of hate.



Manslaughter and gang assault charges for murdering someone?

Does the victim's ethnicity make it less of a crime than if they had done this to a white person in a nice suburb?

Like I said, the perps' ages may have something to do with the charges, but it overall seems like 7 murderers getting off real easy.

What kind of message does this send?

Wow, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a person do.

"Hey look, that guy is hispanic."
"Kill him."

Jacka$$es.

It happened not too infrequently in Mississippi, Alabama, and other states just because a guy was black.

It seems there is no symmetry to progression. We elect a black man for the first time as president, yet there is a growing tide of xenophobia in this country; really, a lot of the same old hating others for their differences.

We've mistakingly thought we had grown beyond this type of society, though we just simply closed our eyes. It is an interesting conflict of evolution where we advanced one step in being able to elect a black man for president in this country and on the same day we moved back two steps when a proposition was passed in California to pave the way for banning gay marriage.

I'm on board with you for race hatred, it is a stupid sentiment in this day and age.  On the other hand, not all differences are healthy.  The Muslim tradition, widely practiced in the Middle East, of stoning girls who are victims of rape, for example.  I don't care how time-honored and traditional it is - it is barbaric and purely evil.

On a separate but similar note, while I am against persecution of gays,   I can't agree with the concept of  gay marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period.  Every culture in the history of the world has recognized it as such, even cultures where homosexuality was widely practiced and carried no social stigma.

You can call a cow a pig all day long, it still isn't going to oink.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage will never make it one, and I find it remarkably arrogant that our culture wants to change the fundamental nature of the oldest institution in human culture in order to bolster the self-esteem of those who are, by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants.

What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?

Oh, wait, Hawaii already did that.

Some institutions exist for a reason; messing with them is a fundamentally bad idea.

There, I stated my conservative opinion.  Let the blowback hatred begin! :teddyr:

The problem is that murder charges require some degree if intent. If a lawyer can convince a jury (which they do on a regular basis) that there wasn't any INTENT, and that a MINOR is not in complete control of their faculties, the kid walks. Also, juries are MUCH more sympathetic to young offenders the get long sentences, and often nullify. Manslaughter still gets a person a decent chunk of time, which I believe we all will agree is better than a walk.


I find that entire statement arrogant. "by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants"? That's the stupidest, sheepish thing I've heard this week. Aren't the "clinicians" that decided this the same ones that were all for pumping kids with Ritalin on every whim? Every culture? Yea, we did lots of things in the past, were all of those right? "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period." I'm glad you profess to speak for everyone in one sentence, and accuse others of arrogance in the next, makes you easy to spot in a crowd.


Lol, now you're stretching it quite a bit. You really can't convince me you believe that argument, yet are still capable of tying your own shoes.

No blowback hatred here.

The problem with opposition to gay marriage based on 'what has always been should always be' is exactly the same problem with racism.



So is a black president a bad idea simply because the institution has been a white male president?

The arguement against gay marriage as 'we should not mess with an institution' and 'it has been good enough for me, why should it be given to them' is holding on to bad ideas.

Bad ideas are that women are inferior to men; that people are inferior to other people based on their differences.

A marriage is okay if one partner beats the other, so long as it's a man beating a woman? But damned if it's between two people who love one another regardless of their sexes?

Perhaps the next step should be to ban interracial marriages. They certainly aren't part of the institution.

The problem with that (not your analysis, which is very pertinent, but the way it looks) is that 6 young black men assault a white boy in Jena, over a blatantly racist incident, and get charged with attempted murder, initially. 7 white boys murder an Hispanic man and one gets charged with manslaughter, and the others with assault.

Attempted murder because the victim was white, and was able to attend a party later that same day?

Murdering an Hispanic man is an assault charge, manslaughter at best?

Is there an inherent bigotry with our system when the punishment fits the skin, not the crime?

Picking two crimes out of the millions that happen doesn't really speak for the state of our system. The point is, that if the prosecutor KNEW, by knowing his jury pool, that those kids would WALK on murder charges, and walk because the jury will let them walk, then they were right in going for manslaughter. It all comes down to the juries in the end. There's also the exact circumstances that come into play. IIRC, wasn't there someone that overheard the Jena 6 speak of "going to kill"? You gotta realize how powerful these are in a juries eyes.

Yes, there is an inherent bigotry, juries do it all the time. We can blame the system all we want, but it all comes down to the jury, and what the prosecutor believes will or will not fly. Look at the OJ trial, , as the jury walked out of the courtroom, a Black male juror gave OJ the "fist across the chest" sign.

I don't entirely disagree with you on that, and certainly not in basis.

I don't have to search very far, or just contrast the Jena case with this one to find an extreme injustice; this country is still littered with such.

You make a good point of pointing out my error in referring to the legal system when the majority of the problem most likely lies with us who make up juries (I am just being inclusive to not be separatist).

It seems, though, that as in the Jena case (more appropriately: The Jena Injustice) that the prosecutor could have started with a higher charge, and plead it down if necessary. It comes off to me that the authorities themselves don't think of an Hispanic laundry worker as much of a victim.

I openly accept that I could be way off, but the message this case sends, especially in the light of the Jena case having been in the public eye, is just messed up. Perhaps, though, if this case is more in the public eye, it might send a wake-up call; doubtful, but hopeful.

The PROSECUTOR, , should have PLEAD IT DOWN. . . Sorry, I got a bit of a laugh out of that. That's not a prosecutor's job, that's not how it works. The defense presents a case to try and give the prosecutor belief that he will fail. If the defense can convince the prosecutor he can't win at the higher charge, then it gets lowered, or, if the stakes are low enough, if saving the people's tax dollars warrants the agreement, then it can be settled. It's not the Prosecutor's job to "plead it down", or should he have taken THAT upon himself just this once?

The fact that I am in an interracial marriage (which was illegal until the late 1960's!) is part of the reason I am pro-gay marriage, the other is I don't believe in taking away basic rights from people.  Who two people choose to get married to is none of your business.  

Pardon my ignorance, I had not realized that plea was past and present tense.

OK, GHouck, no hate, but let me respond to a couple of things you said:

"I find that entire statement arrogant. "by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants"? That's the stupidest, sheepish thing I've heard this week. Aren't the "clinicians" that decided this the same ones that were all for pumping kids with Ritalin on every whim?"

Words mean things.  Deviancy is a significant departure from a biological norm.  The biological norm for the humans species is heterosexuality; that is why about 95% of humans are heterosexual (I know Kinsey said that 10% of the population are gay, but modern studies have shown that finding to be inflated, probably because he oversampled convicts in his original study, where homosexuality is much more common as an adaptation to a single-sex environment).  Deviancy, in its proper clinical usage, is not a perjorative term but a statistical one.

Menard:  "Perhaps the next step should be to ban interracial marriages. They certainly aren't part of the institution."

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Interracial marriages are common in many cultures and go back thousands of years.  Heck, read Deuteronomy.  Moses was married to an Ethiopian.  The aversion to interracial marriages  is a relatively recent development in cultures that were, frankly, strongly racist in their views, like the American South historically has been.


Menard:  "A marriage is okay if one partner beats the other, so long as it's a man beating a woman? But damned if it's between two people who love one another regardless of their sexes?"

Again, an irrelevant argument.  All relationships have problems; those which become abusive or co-dependent obviously need to be terminated.  However, again, you're using a basically unrelated issue - that some marriages are abusive - to prove, or defend, your idea that society can simply redefine the oldest institution in human society at will with no thought for the consequences.  The point is not whether or not all marriages are free of abuse and misuse, the question is, what defines a marriage?

GHouck:  "You really can't convince me you believe that argument, yet are still capable of tying your own shoes. "

(That was in reference to this comment that I made:  "What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?")


Think again.  A piece of anti-sexual discrimination legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy a few years back would have banned ALL discrimination based on "sexual preference."  But it did not provide a DEFINITION of sexual preference.  Had that well-intentioned but disasatrously worded bill become law, you would have immediately had every form of sexual deviant (or to use the old term, pervert) imaginable applying for Federal protection.  It would have made anti-pedophile legislation impossible to enforce, and given every nutjob who enjoys having sex with sheep, shoes, corpses, farm animals, heads of lettuce, or hollowed-out pumpkins an opportunity to clog up the legal system with claims of discrimination.

Ultimately, all jokes and politics aside, what this debate boils down to is a question that is as old as mankind:  Are sexual behaviors inborn, or are they chosen?  I have a difficult time with the idea that we should grant civil rights protection based on the way someone chooses to achieve orgasm.  Or with the idea that we have the right to redefine such an ancient and honored institution as marriage is just so a tiny fraction of the population can feel good about themselves.

And by the way, a woman in Hawaii really did "marry" a dolphin a year or so ago. It was in the news at the time. I wonder - if it doesn't work out, will he make alimony payments in Mackerel, or Herring?

Sorry to have misused the term.

I realize the prosecutor/defense relationship; plea was the first word that came to mind, but was not appropriate.

I will state my opinion on the whole gay marriage subject.  I live in a state that has already outlawed any kind of civil union to keep gays from marrying .

This year they passed a bill disallowing any non-married couples from serving as foster parents to prevent gays from being as foster parents.  Yeah , that's really going to help the Children's services out, by cutting the number of eligible foster parents.   The whole thing about gays raising children to be gay  is pretty preposterous consideriing that the vast majority of gays are raised in heterosexual households.

People who oppose gay unions seem to have an irrational fear or doubt about their own sexuality.   You know gays don't have much to work with as a recruiting slogan.

Come on an join us , get your ass kicked on a regular basis, be ostracized from your family, be discriminated against in the work place and society.


I just don't understand the obsession some straight people have about this subject.  Some gay couple getting married has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's.  


Oh and just because something is not normal, doesn't disqualify it from being natural.

 

That's nice that you are trying to use science as an excuse to call gay people nasty names, but by the same logic white people are "deviants" because they make up the minority of human races.  Therefore, all white people should be banned from getting married, because "historically" marraige has been between non-white people.

Again, you are distinguishing between a BEHAVIOR and an innate, hereditary CHARACTERISTIC in an attempt to make me mean something I did not say or imply.

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS are innate and inherited, BEHAVIORS are not.

Quite the contrary. There are many behaviors that are inherited, and much evidence to support that; more so than there is to disprove it.

Babies have been shown to develop the same behaviors regardless of external stimuli; even those who are blind and cannot possibly mimic the behaviors of others.

Would smiles and fears be biological traits then? Then why can't attraction be just the same?

Oh...I know...it doesn't fit with the 'norm'; regardless of how it came to be.

I don't care for norms; they try to peg people into predetermined categories.


I'm certain that the majority of members of this board don't fall into 'norms'.

If that makes us unacceptable or less than desirable to others, I personally would happily accept that.


I know, I'm irrelevant.

 :tongueout:

With respect and good will to anyone who differs, personally I can't see anything wrong with gay people being allowed to marry.

If heterosexuality and the institution/ordinance/sacrament of marriage has survived Elvis-themed wedding chapels in Las Vegas, the increasing commonality of non-platonic male/female cohabitation, and divorce attorneys so rapacious they advertise in church bulletins right next to the publishing of banns, then it seems to me a man and a woman in love and wanting to be together for life can and will do so even if two men or two women elsewhere wish to have that same privilege.

I just can't for the life of me see that gay marriage erodes society or harms anyone, but obviously most people disagree, and in a democracy a majority opinion usually carries the day.

Well reasoned, as always, ER.

If we are going to redefine the world's oldest and most sacred institution - at least, in most cultures and most ages . . . . then let it be done at the ballot box, by the will of the people, not imposed from above by an activist judge, or by a city mayor whose contempt for Federal law is well-documented.

Again,  I know I'm being a curmudgeon, but calling a relationship something it is not, and has never been throughout the 5000 years of recorded history, does not make it that thing.  To me, no homosexual relationship, whether male or female, will ever be a marriage.

To all those who disagree, feel free to write me off as a hopeless intellectual neanderthal.  You wouldn't be the first!!!   :wink:

I don't remember talking about prostitution...

...oh...wait a minute...that's world's oldest profession

Nevermind :tongueout:

Just to defend Indy for a moment, I think what he's trying to say (re: biology vs. behaviour) is that he does not agree with the trend toward viewing people of a certain sexual preference as equivalent to a racial or ethnic group.

I have to agree with that. I don't think sharing a sexual preference, whether picked up by nature or nurture, should be considered the same as being black, white, hispanic, Jewish or whatever. On the one hand, you have major populations shaped by evolutionary and cultural forces for millennia, and on the other hand, you have a percentage of those populations, who share one characteristic and not necessarily anything else. That should be an obvious distinction.

That's where I have a problem with debates like this - when people just aren't being honest with themselves. Indy is right. Homosexuality is abnormal. The human body doesn't work that way. From an evolutionary perspective, mating with your own gender is a dead end. Personally, I don't see how it differs from any other kink, except for being built up into a quasi-racial group on one side of the argument and a major threat to society on the other. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with being kinky. I would defy anyone on this board to tell me they don't have even a single, just slightly unusual turn-on. It's best to just be honest with ourselves. Homosexuality is abnormal. It's also fairly common, and generally no harm to anyone in and of itself. It just isn't that big a deal.

And isn't that the best thing? For it to be considered no big deal? This is where I have another problem. On the one hand, we are supposed to see gays as ordinary, normal people, which, by and large, they are. On the other hand, there is this tendency, at least by the activists, to wrap quite a lot of their identity up in this 'gay' label, and to present us with this monolithic group who flaunt their sexuality publicly in flamboyant annual parades. What's the deal with that?

To me, it seems counterproductive to go about redefining cultural institutions if acceptance is the goal. Again, we have a group of regular folks who just want to go about their business like everyone else. The whole purpose of gay marriage is to be viewed and treated like everyone else. The biggest obstacle to this is the many folks who see homosexuality as somehow threatening to their way of life. Tinkering with their most cherished institutions is only going reinforce that belief.

For that matter, I don't agree that governments have a right to redefine institutions that are cultural and not governmental in origin. Governments can, and do, extend spousal benefits to committed couples who are not 'married' in the strict definition of the word. And rightly so. However, society's institutions should only be tinkered with when society is ready to do so. That means a strong consensus, which isn't there right now.

I don't believe there will be such a consensus until people on one side stop viewing homosexuality as inherently evil and people on the other side stop seeing it as something more special than it is.

That said, my original intention was to leave that issue alone entirely and speak to the original post. Gang assault seems like the appropriate charge for most of the group, but I'm surprised at the manslaughter charge. How do you stab a guy without at least some expectation that it might kill him? Manslaughter is appropriate if you kill somebody while doing something that ordinarily wouldn't be fatal, like punching or kicking, but sticking a knife in somebody? That's murder. Maybe he didn't do it with intent to kill, but he must have understood there was a strong possibility. Maybe the others should be charged as accomplices to murder as well.

But they do have a right to go into somebody's bedroom?

There's two sides to that coin. One side say's that government, and others, should not redefine the institution of marriage (still looking for that definition myself) but the other side wants government to prevent 'undesirables' from taking part in it by enacting legislation on it; and this is the same coin. Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

An institution?

To whom does it solely belong?

Christians?

Buddhists?

Muslims?

Were any of the people in those groups born that way?

That's another hypocrisy where people of one behavior by choice want to restrict others from a so-called institution on the claims of their chosen behavior; so we essentially have, if government makes laws to restrict, government telling us what is acceptable behavior based purely on religious doctrine and bigotry. Didn't we supposedly move away from that centuries ago?

Marriage is solely the business of two people; the two being married, and nobody else. It does not belong solely to any group (who have chosen to be that way). Defending that right is not claiming somebody to be special; just claiming that everybody has a right to make a choice.

Through 5000 years of recorded history marriage has been many things, it has only been exclusively between a man and a woman very recently.  One has only to read the Bible and the numerous tales of dudes with multiple wives to see things weren't always Ozzie and Harriet 1950's.  Many cultures have polygamy and whatever it is called when there is multiple husbands, there is also arranged marriages which aren't done out of love, nor were lots of marriages throughout the ages.  The same arguments used here such as people marrying turtles are next are the exact same arguments leveled against interracial marriages.  No, that crazy lady's wedding is not legally recognized and never will be due to the dolphin not being a consenting human adult.  Nor is the lady who married a wall, that Indian guy who married a goat, or any other wacky marriage (I believe those Indian ones are just ceremonial, but then again, it is India...)

The greatest threat to marriage is not two dudes kissing, it is more the sky-high divorce rate.  According to the Bible, there is no divorce, but you don't see people adding those constitutional amendments, I am guessing it is due to the strangely large amount of divorced hardcore conservatives who like to tell people who they can or can't marry.  I say let gays get married, maybe the divorce rate will go down a bit.  It does not hurt my marriage one bit, and if it hurts yours, that is between you and your wife, not two strangers.

But Menard, that was my point. Marriage is a cultural institution, defined by various cultural groups in their own way. Government should not be concerning itself with that either way, but rather just looking at the relationship. Governments already do that. An exclusive relationship between two people is already recognized as a de facto marriage, regardless of whether they've gone through any official ceremony. Partners in such relationships are generally entitled to the same benefits as those in a 'marriage' and in that way, government has already demonstrated that it has its own definition of marriage.

The problem is not whether the government recognizes the relationship as marriage, but whether the majority of people see it that way. Passing a law will not change that one way or the other. The people who don't agree with gay marriage will not recognize it, no matter what the law says, and forcing a new definition on them from the top down will only make them less inclined to do so. That's what this is about. The government already says it's marriage, even if it isn't called that. This is about making everyone call it marriage, which cannot be forced. Forcing it just invites a backlash, which is where we get legislation aimed at banning gay marriage.

That is why I say that it is more productive to work on changing the attitude first, then changing the terminology.

Tars - "According to the Bible, there is no divorce"

Au contraire. Divorce was common and easy in the Old Testament. Jesus and Paul decried the easy divorce rate and said that infidelity should be the only real cause of divorce.  Just like everything else God gave us, man has take marriage, meant to be a lifelong and beautiful relationship, and screwed it up and cheapened it.

 "Many cultures have polygamy and whatever it is called when there is multiple husbands, there is also arranged marriages which aren't done out of love, nor were lots of marriages throughout the ages. "

True, marriage has taken different forms in different cultures and ages - but in ALL those forms it was still a male-female relationship.  That's my whole point.  Marriage has never been a same-sex institution before, and I see no reason to change that.

Then the question begs to be asked:

What makes a cultural group?

Is lifestyle one of those things?

Throughout this entire conversation, those opposed to gay marriage simply want to define marriage by their belief system, then proclaim it to be a sacred institution to them.




No. Far from it. It's about difference. The majority of people did not accept interracial marriages when they were allowed in this country. Who's to say that the majority still do? Should we just turn around and ban anything that the majority doesn't like because of discrimination?

Allowing two people to be married is forcing nothing on you. If you don't want to call their relationship marriage, that's your problem. If you want to ban then from being married, that's you taking your problem and making it their's.

A lot of the arguments used against gay marriage are the same arguments that have been used against civil rights. As it was then, it is just discrimination candy-coated in rationalizations.

BTW, I am largely generalizing in my response; I am not pointing the finger at you, Andy.




Could you kindly point out where we even even came close to making the same point?

Of course not, it doesn't suit you personally and doesn't fit your religion.

The insistence that homosexuality is a behavior and not a biological characteristic is ignorant. I see it as the witch hunt it has always been. Have you ever known or been related to a homosexual? Have you ever heard them truly speak about how they feel? It doesn't take much listening before one realizes that this isn't something they 'decided', as you try to make it sound by labeling it as "behavior". Homosexuals ARE what they ARE, there's no changing that, no need to anyways, and no need to discriminate against them either.

BTW, are you trying to tell me that the state of Hawaii actually knowingly issued a marriage certificate to a dolphin, and not just through a previously unnoticed loophole in the law? Supposing they did, please explain how that effects YOU.

Great discussion.  I'll stay out of the gay marriage debate, though. 
You don't think there's a corollary?  Our culture is changing, not entirely in good ways, but change is always frightening for people.  I'm very proud to be an American in the wake of this election, but I suspect there are millions of Americans who don't feel the same way. 

The author of the article you linked to states: "...We've raised two or maybe three generations of Americans who think they're entitled to shun the kind of jobs that their parents and grandparents did years ago..." 
I know too many parents who indulge their children and are horrified at the idea that they should make their children do chores, or work to earn money for a car... the very things their own parents often had insisted upon from them. 

Although I think his statement is a bit of an overstatement, I feel, on my part, that is largely by my experience of where I have lived and traveled.

With the increase in immigration, even where I live, we are seeing an increase in the number of service jobs being filled by migrant workers, even to the point of almost exclusively so. Perhaps within the larger cities, where I presume the author is from, this is even more evident.

My first job at 14 was as a janitor at my high school; that was full-time and I thought I was making a lot at $3.00 an hour. I also worked at the local Dairy Queen. I see young people in this little redneck town working at fast food places, Walmart, convenience stores, the theater, and the like. Go just one town over, though, and you will see a contrast in some of those positions where you will be more likely to find migrant workers at fast food places and single mothers or those trying to earn an extra dollar filling cashier positions at other places; but where the hell are the teenagers and how the hell can they afford the Xboxes, computers, and LCD TVs?


Certainly a contrast in what I was used to in my corner of the world was a week I spent in a small town in Mississippi. The lines of division by race were stark. Going into a McDonald's or grocery store, anybody in a cashier position was black; only their managers were white. Keep in mind that this was the 90s.

The prevailing attitude of the white folks in that town was that this is the way things have always been, it works for them, and they see no need for change.

Kind of like the attitude expressed by those opposed to gay marriage...huh?

In that the definition of marriage is a subjective thing. People define it according to their own culture and beliefs.

Of course, from that, I conclude that perhaps government should not concern itself with subjective definitions of marriage and look only at the common elements - two consenting human adults in a committed relationship - for everyone. Leave marriage as a cultural institution to be defined and practiced by people as they see fit, which they're going to do anyway. People who don't agree with gay marriage aren't going to call it marriage no matter what laws are passed, and gay couples are going to enter into committed relationships regardless of what those other people say. And such relationships are already recognized as de facto marriages anyway. Redefining the terms, to me, is pointless. To put it into different terms, it's like the difference between calling somebody "differently abled" while treating him as essentially useless, and calling him a cripple and treating him with respect. Thoughts and deeds mean more than words. Playing around with the words we use will not change anyone's attitude, but might indeed encourage resentment and hostility.

A more tolerant society is what is needed, and it's moving that way, but it takes time. You can't force it, only help it along.

As for the definition of a cultural group, I think I made my position clear on that. One behavioral trait does not make a culture. I think you'll agree that homosexuals can be found throughout society, regardless of race, nationality, religion or political leanings. They share one single trait, and I don't see how it serves them to be lumped all together based on that one trait.

One of my lifelong friends is gay, and has been for years.  We hang out together several times a year, and his sexuality does not stop us from being friends.

I'm being dragged out the door, will talk more later.

Interesting how those sentences work together. :tongueout:

 :teddyr:

Good, ask them if they feel their sexuality is behavior that can be controlled, or if it is a part of them biologically.

"In that the definition of marriage is a subjective thing. People define it according to their own culture and beliefs."

Yep.  That's why marriage shouldn't play a part in it.  Committed adult couples should be able to get civil unions for the extra rights and responsibilities it gives them, for any reason.  The marriage part of the equation should be completely ignored by the government.

Since this thread more or less began with a discussion of minority status, may I say that there is one minority group on earth that I find frequently annoying, prone to make wars, commit crimes, merge without giving signals, get in fistfights, be oversexed, have bad fashion sense and in general be totally illogical to me. This minority group is called.....MEN!  :bouncegiggle:

In reply to the actual topic here: those teenagers are murderers, plain and simple, as has been stated. To me it has never mattered the motivation for murder (hatred of a person for race is just as little reason for murder as hatred of a person for cheating in a relationship, cheating at gambling, or anything else). I don't care for the designation "hate crime" simply because murder is murder; to say that one is worse than the other because it was racially motivated is a poor argument.

As for the gay marriage debate, wouldn't it be simpler all around if the government simply stopped recognizing marriage all together? I'm a moral conservative and, as I have said when commenting on other topics, I am a devout Christian. That said, I do not believe that you can legislate morality beyond the basics (murder, rape, violence, theft, etc.). I am against the government trying to tell anyone what they can do in the bedroom; it simply doesn't work. As AndyC said (more or less), you need to change cultural perceptions before anything can be accepted as a "cultural norm," whatever that may actually mean. Marriages began as religious ceremonies, not civil arrangements. They were basically a declaration that the two people involved (yes, multiple wives were acceptable then, but they did each usually get their own ceremony) were heretofore bound and could feel free to procreate, practicing as much as they liked. These ceremonies had little if anything to do with the government. It seems to be a great time to return to that attitude: leave marriage for religious institutions, intervening only when said marriage does not involve consenting adults (i.e., marriage between an adult and a child or involving someone who is not capable of making a responsible decision, to keep anyone from marrying a comatose person, for example). Want to file a joint income tax return? Great! Want to visit your partner in the hospital? Peachy (although the policies of some hospitals might disagree)! If you are not religious, then "marriage" is not for you, be you heterosexual or homosexual (or bisexual, or transsexual, or transgendered, or whatever other sexual orientation/body image you may espouse).

Jim H put it more succinctly than I just did, but it seems to be a reasonable position to me, though I know it will never happen; people of all races, creeds and political ideologies simply like to fight too much, and the government doesn't just give up its authority simply because it had no business taking that authority in the first place. Plus the divorce lawyer lobby group is too powerful; they would probably sue if the government tried anything like this  :tongueout:.

Merge without giving signal? You are so full of it. . .

Yep, I agree they are murderers. Unless they have a developmental disorder, every one of them knew that their actions could be deadly. Doesn't matter how they WANTED it to turn out, they knew that it COULD kill a person, and the went ahead anyways.

That's pretty sad.

Let me give you an example:


Billy Joe Ray Jim Bob, son of Jr., finds out that his brother, Cletus Elmo Magee, has been doing his wife. Aside from Billy Joe Ray Jim Bob, son of Jr., contemplating divorce and wondering if he and his wife would still legally be 1st cousins after the fact, he finds himself angry with Cletus Elmo Magee and confronts him about it. The two brothers get into a heated argue, tempers flair out of control, a fight ensues, and Cletus Elmo Magee is killed in the scuffle.

Billy Joe Ray Jim Bob, son of Jr., ends up in court and is convicted of the murder of his brother.


Seven youths decide they are going to kill a spic; and they do. They don't even know his name, or have any feeling about it; they are just stepping on an insect.

They are facing charges of manslaughter and assault; apparently they are not the only ones who think little of the victim's status as a human.


Yes, both end with dead bodies.

No, both are not the same.

In the first case, the killer knew his victim, emotions were involved, and he even recognized his victim as a human being; perhaps even more importantly than that, so did the jury recognize his victim as a human being.

In the second case, not only did the murderers not consider the victim a human, but, as ghouck pointed out, the prosecutor apparently feels they cannot get murder charges to fly with the likely jury with which they will have to deal.

Murder is murder?

Can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that two guys getting in a fight over one cheating with the other one's wife, and one of them getting killed in the fight, is the same as what recently happened with Jennifer Hudson's family? Not only were two adults shot dead in cold blood, but the deviant f**k murdered a defenseless 8 year old child. Can you sit there and tell me those are the same?

A bunch of white guys get together and decide to go out and shoot a black person; just simply because of the color of the victim's skin. They'll find someone walking along the side of the road or sitting on a bench and murder them with no more consideration than they would give a squirrel they plink with a 22. Is that the same as two guys who know each other getting in a fight over one of them cheating with the other one's wife?

I don't know exactly what classifying a crime as a hate crime does exactly, but if it gives more teeth to the prosecution of such crimes where juries most likely won't, then it is something that is needed to balance out the system, at least until we can do a better job at balancing ourselves; it may be the only justice victims of such crimes get.


*I have never had to deal with juries, serve on one, or deal with a court (lucky me :lookingup:), so the aforementioned is speculation on my part. :tongueout:

The two cases you cited are not exactly comparable. I know, I made the comparison originally, and it was a poor choice. How about this: One group of murderous jackasses sets out to kill someone because of the color of that person's skin, religious beliefs, lifestyle choice, whatever, without knowing that person. Another group sets out to kill someone they don't know and rob them, either taking their car, wallet, purse, or whatever. Neither group knows or cares anything about their victim. Muggings resulting in grievous bodily harm/death are more common than "hate crimes." How then is killing someone for the $20 in their wallet not as bad as killing someone because they have the "wrong" color of skin? Sorry, but having to make special laws to deal with murder to give it more "bite" with juries is what is sad. As far as I am concerned, murder is murder, and the laws on the books are sufficient for prosecution. I have less to worry about from Billy Joe Ray Jim Bob (or Nunzio, or Carlos, or whatever name you want to ascribe to the aggressor in a crime of passion) in the long run, because those crimes are committed in a frenzy. Muggers, carjackers, gangbangers, klansmen, etc., are all of the same ilk, and yet you are going to tell me that a group who kills a minority is worse than a group who kills in a turf war or just for profit? Sorry, but I can't agree.

You also get all the other crap thrown in like sorting through seven different versions of the facts in the second case, and the fact that juries, as unpredictable as they are, are even more so when kids are involved. Even though minors only make up a small fraction of criminal trials in the US, IIRC, they account for half of the number of cases that end with Jury Nullification (where a jury hands down a verdict of innocent not due to the belief in innocence, but rather due to not agreeing with the law or the punishments that could be imposed).

As far as hate crimes, it's another of those 'feel good laws' that do absolutely nothing except give taxpayers the illusion and (false) satisfaction that their elected officials are 'doing something'. Whats more is that it tends to drive DOWN punishments for the same crime when it is NOT declared a 'hate crime'. So the 'hate crime' laws that were lobbied as protecting minorities, is LOWERING the punishments handed down for the most common occurrences, minority v like minority crime (Black v Black is the most common form or murder in the US).

All in all though, our system is based on PEOPLE, and PEOPLE are flawed. The system is more of a "jockey for position" experience than a "get everything out in the open and let the jury decide". There was a special on TV called "The trial of Evan Zimmerman", about the re-trial of a guy that was completely railroaded by the system, and about how the system failed on so many levels in so many different ways.

Would you like to point out where I specifically said that? I said no such thing.

Not only did you say

but you followed it up with


That's a contradiction. If murder is murder, then the two cases I cited should be comparable regardless.



7 youths stab an Hispanic man to death and at best one is facing manslaughter charges. If you reversed that and the victim was white and stabbed to death by Hispanics, how many would not be looking at murder charges? That is sufficient?


*If you feel I quoted you out of context, please let me know.

I have a question for you, ghouck (just simply because I don't know).

I have understood that, depending on the state, juries may be restricted to limited options if they decide the defendant is guilty.

If that is the case, do you know if that has had much of an influence on juries finding defendants not guilty as they felt the charges they could use did not fit the crime?

As well, along those lines, can a jury, I guess depending on state again, return a verdict with a greater charge than what the prosecution was seeking?

Dragged...?  Not dragged outta the closet...?   :bouncegiggle:   :wink:  :lookingup:  Uhm, jus' kidding.   :lookingup:  Your lifelong friend is gay and "has been for years," so y'think something "turned" him gay?  Please advise.  Just curious. 

You argue that we need special laws to target racially-motivated crimes. They don't include random muggings that result in murder, gang warfare, or anything like that. Your argument for those laws implies (to me) that you consider racially-motivated crimes to be somehow worse than others. If that is not your intent, then please clarify why we need special hate-crime legislation.


Not so much a contradiction as a matter of relevance. In my original post I brought up the hate crime/crime of passion comparison. That was not as relevant to this discussion as the mugging/carjacking/gangbanging comparison. You wanted to make the motivation behind the crime the main focus, and the motivations in my modified comparison are more similar and therefore more relevant. How is a racially motivated murder any worse from profit-motivated murder?


I never said that the case in point was handled correctly; in fact, I was supporting your contention that these murderers are indeed murderers, plain and simple, and they should be prosecuted appropriately. The law is not the problem in this case; the problem lies with the handling of that law. I've never understood prejudice; it just makes no sense to me. As such, I may be naive in wishing that those in authority would treat all people the same, even while knowing better. But I've never seen retributive legislation that works; that is, any law that is passed to "make up" for past sins generally gets abused (either through being ignored or through overzealous prosecution) more often than not. Laws relating to hate crimes are aimed almost exclusively at whites (all the cases that I've seen, at least), as if to say that no other ethnic group in this country kills for racial reasons. I simply don't believe that we can put extra weight on certain laws to make up for past behavior or for (hopefully) fading attitudes of bigotry. In my dream world, noting a person's skin color would be nothing more than a casual observation, certainly no call to judgment. I try to live my life to that end, and, to me, special hate crime legislation is just as bigoted as any other law aimed at a specific ethnic group. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, Menard; I'm just trying to explain my motivation for opposing hate crime laws.

You do say, "I don't know exactly what classifying a crime as a hate crime does exactly, but if it gives more teeth to the prosecution of such crimes where juries most likely won't, then it is something that is needed to balance out the system, at least until we can do a better job at balancing ourselves; it may be the only justice victims of such crimes get." My problem is not so much with the intention of such laws as with their execution and lifespan. It is rare to ever see a government body repeal a law of any kind, and laws to "balance things out" doubly so, because they are somehow "special." Do they serve justice? Rarely. As ghouk said, our system is geared toward people, and people are flawed. A jury who is willing to let a manslaughter charge suffice in a case like this is still going to be likely to do so if the prosecutor labels it a hate crime. As I said in another post, you can't legislate morality, and to add to that, you can't legislate the bigotry out of someone. In my view, the best way to stamp out "hate crimes" is to get to the root of the problem and work to erase bigotry, not through legislation, but through personal example, one person at a time. Will my way work? Not always, but then, neither will hate crime legislation. Both approaches are flawed to some degree. Mine makes more lasting sense to me, but then I've never really understood most people's motivations, so take it for what it's worth.

Well, the charges MUST fit the crime, else the person is NOT guilty. It's not weather a person is guilty or not, but rather guilty of the CHARGES levied against them. So if they're accused of 1st degree murder (premeditated murder, murder to further the commission of a crime, or murder of a peace officer/public servant), and the jury finds the evidence shows MURDER, but not the variables that are required to justify 1st degree, the jury must find them innocent of 1st degree murder. Some (most) states allow a person to be brought up on multiple charges for the same crime, even though in the end only one will fit, some do not allow this. Some allow juries to ask for a lesser charge or something like that, and many do not. No state allows a jury to RAISE the charges, however, some have ways of tackling on "aggravators" that can raise the sentence. Not entirely sure how that works.

Some states do not allow jury nullification, I'm not sure exactly how they deal with it. I do remember talk of a big case, maybe someone involved with Ruby Ridge or Waco, where the jury found them not guilty, and the judge told them they couldn't do that and sent them back into deliberations. Not sure how that worked (IIRC, Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme had some similar weirdness in her trial, or maybe some other looney chick.)

Some states, mine for one, only uses juries to determine GUILT, and the sentencing is done with judges alone. We often have a number of unsentenced inmates at the prison where I work. So once the jury finds a person guilty, there's no telling how much time they get, nor does the jury have any idea beforehand.

Hate crime laws generally aren't pushed and passed on the basis of murder in the first place. They're more often pushed because of gang beatings (which do lead to deaths, but not even remotely the majority of the time), and crap like that (The legislation pushed in Alaska was started in response to a bunch of videotaped "native paintballing" incidents, where stupid white kids videotaped themselves shooting natives, some homeless, with a paintball gun, specifically targeting natives). Like all laws, they get expanded upon, or rather the 'condensed version' the the public hears is a bit different that the expanded version. More than one state had it's law passed soley on basis of stopping "Gay bashing". .

I do think racially motivated crimes are worse, but not necessarily in all instances, and not necessarily when the crimes are comparative. If you want to get an all or nothing definition from me, that's not going to happen as I neither think like nor make statements of the ilk that 'murder is murder',  'crime is crime', 'amen and god bless'.

Your example of the random mugging is a good example of where the victim is a random mugging that ends in murder. Though I don't necessarily believe in such randomness in muggings; not that the perp knew the victim, but I doubt that you'll often hear a mugger screaming 'oh goddamn, it's a homeless guy'.

In the example where it is a random mugging that ends in murder, or it is a targeted hate crime where the victim was murdered for their difference, the end result is much the same; the victim was murdered without an ounce of consideration as a human being.

Where the difference is, is in who the victim is and how that affects how the murderer will likely be charged. Is it fair if the victim is Hispanic for the perp to get nothing more than manslaughter, while if the victim is white they can be facing murder charges?






You are still saying that murder is murder. If murder is murder, then there should be no difference in the relevance of one crime to another. You can't say 'murder is murder, but one is more relevant that the other'.

Make up your mind. Is murder murder, regardless, or are there degrees of murder? The law seems to think there are degrees of murder; which includes the motivation behind it.

 


No, I don't know what classifying a crime as a hate crime does. I do know that if someone is a member of a minority, their chance at getting justice is lessened. If there are laws on the books that can overcome that imbalance when the crime is hate motivated, I don't see that as a bad thing, with the big 'if' being 'if it can work'.

The only thing I know about upping the severity of a crime is when I worked in security years ago and we had to deal with protective orders. My only understanding of what those protective orders did, as they really didn't protect the victim, was that should someone violate the order, the charge would be upped to the next level; theoretically, if they could be charged with assault 4, assault 3 would be recommended. That most likely is an over-simplification of it.

There is an assault 2, in our state, reserved specifically for assault against a peace officer; and it is a felony. If there is an option to do the same for the victim of a hate crime where they might not otherwise get a fair shake due to inherent discrimination among jurors, shouldn't the option at least be considered? Shouldn't these youths who murdered this Hispanic man simply because he was Hispanic face felony charges at the least rather than walking on misdemeanor assault*?

*Again, I'm speculating as my knowledge of the legal system and its specifics is limited.

I think Morgan Freeman said it well when asked about overcoming racism as he replied to a question from Mike Wallace...

Even a casual observation of differences is noticing a difference. I won't see prejudice nullified in my lifetime, and it will never truly disappear as it is human nature to notice things that are different and look for things that make us better than others. I do think it can and will improve vastly as we have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.

Personally, i don't agree with manipulating the system to compensate for the people. The system is OF the people, flaws and all. The pendulum swings, , for a while the juries are lenient for one reason, then later strict because of what the leniency did. Systems don't swing, they're solid, , so when the pendulum swings back, we have the OPPOSITE discrimination, except now it takes an act of congress to fix. The biggest 'human flaw' problem with the system comes into play LONG before sentencing: It's in witness statements (or lack thereof). Getting people to testify, and do so accurately, , and to APPEAR accurate and neutral, , is a greater hurdle.


Sure there are. If you kill someone in an argument, that's likely murder 2, no chance for the death penalty. Of you PLAN to kill them, or kill them to facilitate a crime, it's murder 1, and some states DO have a death penalty for it.

It's just not as simple as 'murder is murder', our laws are based largely around INTENT. The REASON someone performed a crime is highly important, which is necessary especially when you get into lesser crimes and the gray areas. Obviously, if you're driving down the road and lose control of your car and kill someone, it's handled differently than it would be had you just plainly blasted someone, or even lost control because you were drunk. Which brings quite a problem. Two REAL cases: A guy runs a bootlegging operation in a dry village. He's pressured by a known thug and felon. The thug is known to be assaultive, threatening, and carry a gun (illegally, since he's a felon). SOMETHING happens, looks like the thug was trying to rob him, and the thug gets killed. Because the guy is a SMUGGLER and protecting illegal goods, he gets 99 years. See, in many states, if you are COMMITTING a crime, you forfeit your rights to defend yourself with deadly force, or even possess a firearm. Possessing illegal goods was the crime he was committing,therefor not legally allowed to defend himself with the only force the was suitable. 

Another guy, family church-going guy gets drunk and head-ons another car. Kills 2, injurs one. Gets 22 years, 10 each for the deaths, 2 for the vehicular assaults.

Sound fair? So, a s**tbag, felon thug's life is worth 99 years, innocent person driving down the highway minding their own business, 10 each.

Personally I find the act of going out, hunting someone down to hurt them purely based on their race is particularly heinous and if there is a legislation in place that punishes someone just that little bit more for doing such a thing, then I'm for it.  Again, there's different categories of murder, and whilst murder may be murder in some people's eyes, I do think motivation is an important factor in bringing down punishment.

Still, I find it hard to get too worked up about these sort of things.  From what little of my experiences with the courts there doesn't seem like there is any rhyme nor reason anyways, and I try not to get myself up in a lather about it, unless it's just plain stupid.

Just a technical question somebody can maybe clarify for me: did these people only get charged or have they been sentenced yet?  Also, what can you get as a maximum for manslaughter compared to murder?  I mean, there's alot of facts on this specific case which we're missing as to why they were charged with manslaughter as opposed to murder etc, so I wonder what led the prosecutor's to choose their charges.



As for the gay marriage thing, well...

 :lookingup:

I don't see how this is an issue at all.  I mean I DO see how it's an issue, but I've yet to hear a single credible argument [in my own humble opinion] about why it's a bad thing and should not be the case.  Sure I understand people's varied opinion on it, but, I dunno, it just escapes me why it's such a big deal for people... [ok so it doesn't escape me but still...]

To me, marriage was and always has been a partnership between two people who love each other [all the better if they happen to be of legal age right?  :wink:].  To say that marriage is between a man and a woman seems purely based on the fact that this happens to be the people in the majority.

My partner was talking to me today about new legislation here that protects people in domestic relationships [that is, living together] from emotional, financial and physical abuse.  This law is interesting because it protects people regardless of what their relationship is, same sex or hetero.  Yet this courtesy isn't extended to same sex couples when it comes to classifying their relationship.

I don't know how it is in the states, but from what little I understand of it for us here, the law in this country isn't applied evenly when it comes to same sex couples.  Say my partner died, and happened to be a man, by law I am not entitled to the same rights as if my partner was a woman.  That is just ridiculous to me, and is one of the reason's why I am pro gay marriage.

Personally if all the laws were applied evenly to both same sex and the so called 'normal' couples, then I don't think the gay marriage issue would have nearly as much bite as it does now.  I love my girlfriend, but whilst I may want to marry her, I don't need a certificate to tell me that she and I are together.  But at the same time I personally feel it's my right to be able to get that piece of paper, that ring, that whatever to prove it if I so wish.  This shouldn't change if my partner was a man.

Anyways the only argument I heard on gay marriage from the opposite side of my fence that carried any weight with me, however little, was that the act of marriage was a religious title and not a civic one, and as such needed to be condoned by church and not government.  This I do disagree with, but it may be an imperfectly valid point in terms of legislation.

Eh... This thread reminds me of what I hear about your Congress in various jokes: you have a bill to vote for and people just tack on all these completely unrelated issues to it in order to get their particular agenda through.

Oh and karma for Tars for his interracial relationship status.  I'm with ya on that one!

Actually, gay couples in Canada were entitled to spousal benefits in Canada for some time before gay marriage was legalised. Didn't really lessen the controversy. What bothered me more than anything was that the decision was made by the courts, and parliament didn't really have much choice. Laws should be made by the democratically-elected government, not by a judge. But that's really a broader issue.

As to the murder charge, Ghouck makes an excellent point. You can only lay a charge that is likely to stick based on the evidence. If your only witnesses are the perpetrators and the dead victim, and your scene was demolished by paramedics trying to save the guy, that might be a problem. I don't think it's fair to say that race was a factor in the charges, or that the charges would have been more severe had the races been reversed. Might be the case, but there's no evidence to support the charge. Interesting parallel, actually.

For me, I don't think attacking a random person based on race is necessarily worse than attacking any other random person. The scary thing here is a gang of teenagers who get their kicks from roaming the streets and attacking a stranger who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is scary psycho behaviour no matter who is involved.

This is the first instance where you have qualified your initial contention that racially motivated murders are worse than non-racially motivated murders, and I'll accept that. However, that initial statement is indeed along the same lines as "murder is murder," so please don't make belittling statements like this. It doesn't further your argument. In context, my statement stands that racially motivated murder is no worse than any other random murder. I qualified that in my response after admitting that my initial comparison was faulty. Of course there are degrees of murder; ghouk put it better than I did, and I agree with his assessment, so please take his sentiment as my own in this case.


Neither will you find a gang of white kids screaming, "oh, no, he's only half Mexican!" Of course muggers target certain victims; so do bigoted thugs.


I already answered this once. Of course both criminals should be charged the same for committing the same crime. The problem in this particular case wasn't the law; it was the handling of the law. We don't need more laws; rather, we need better handling of the laws we have. Passing more laws won't end prejudice, and where bigotry is widespread enough, those in authority will still ignore the new laws aimed at racially motivated crimes.


You're pushing me for a declaration that you refused to make earlier in your argument. Please see above.


So noting that someone has red hair instead of brown is prejudice? Casually noting differences isn't the problem; the problem arises when we use preconceived notions to rush to judgment on someone upon noting those differences. If I am trying to describe someone so that a friend can identify him, saying that he's black is no more prejudiced than saying that he has black hair. I'll put this as painfully as possible: You and I agree on this  :tongueout:. Why are we arguing this point?

Laws that deal specifically with race issues are almost always doomed to be futile because by nature they exist in an effort to equalize inequalities that are insuperably inherent within the human species itself. We humans possess a hubris that makes us think it is within our power to change reality itself. We also live in a fantasy-enshrouded age wherein we feel that if we want something to be true and say enough times it is true, and punish those who dare point out the differing state of reality, then somehow, magically, the desired state of affairs will manifest.

The enforcement and even the wording of most hate crimes laws are also highly one-sided. As is the very perception of racism itself.

For instance when I was in high school the local Archbishop, a good man with I'm sure the best intentions, came out with a definition of racism which he wanted announced to everyone so that we could "examine our consciences and conduct" with a mind to correction. His definition of racism was something like, "racism is when a proportionally superior race holds negative opinions or undertakes the practice of acts of discrimination against a numerically inferior race."

Even as a high schooler I thought, wait a second, only the majority race can be racist? Not a minority? Isn't saying a minority population isn't capable of racism somehow denying that group its full capacity to possess human feelings? And isn't that itself racist?

My points here as I step into this very tiring and unresolvable quagmire of human xenophobia being that some of the worst racists have been members of minority groups, and some of the worst would-be (but seldom so labeled) hate crimes I've heard of have been those perpetrated by representatives of a minority ethnicity against a majority ethnicity.

While a white on black/Hispanic/Asian/gay incident will make front page news and outrage a community programmed to be outraged, an equally vicious assault by someone from a minority ethnic group on a white person rarely brings on much an outcry.

Don’t get me wrong, an attack is an attack and should not be overlooked, but where is the equality in legislation when it comes to race-related violence?

From what I read of the incident at the start of this meandering thread, the perpetrators of the crime were absolutely in the wrong, social anger is justified, but where is that same outrage at the many thousands of, say, black on white maulings that go on yearly? I doubt more than a few whites have heard of most of the appalling race-hate-based murders of whites that should reign in infamy. Why? The media doesn’t touch them. It plays better to tell of “rednecks” or “rich white kids” battering “helpless” African Americans, or Mexican immigrants. And frankly, yeah, I’m a little tired of that.

And as I said at the start, equality between genders, races, individuals is an impossible fantasy. Sure we all deserve the same civil rights, the same chance to pursue happiness, but efforts to level a playing field in life are only going to go so far and are sometimes the very agents that expose the inherent inequality in human populations. The more good we try to do, the worse we make it. (Cough---the mortgage mess!)

Send violent criminal to jail, whatever their race, income, creed. But if you’re going to have hate crimes laws, apply them equally.

Your doubts are wrong. I hear just as much about violenct perpetrated against whites by people of minority races as vice-versa.


The 'equlaity' isn't supposed to be in punishing a black person for attacking a white person, or in punishing a white person for attacking a hispanic person, but rather to punish ANYONE , HARSHLY if their MOTIVATION for that attack is RACE. 'Motivation' is the key word. I get what they tried to do, but it's kind of like throwing the baby out with teh bathwater.


Well, the laws DO apply to everyone. We can make Jena-6 / white surburban ganster comparisons all day long, but the fact is that plucking two polar cases out of the many, many there are to choose from. I currently have a  few workers that are in for a hate crime, one is doing 14 for shooting someone in the face with a pellet gun, racially motivated of course. The implications the people of minority race don't get beaten with 'hate crime' stick is false.

Ugh, I can barely follow all of the various strands of this discussion anymore. 

To Ghouk:  Great job describing the various degrees of homicide.  To answer a question of yours, I highly doubt there's any state where juries participate in sentencing.  Traditionally juries are finders of fact who determine guilt or innocence, then the judge sets the sentence.  Sometimes he is required to look at mandatory aggravating/mitigating circumstances from the sentencing guidelines of the state.

To Dean: They have only been charged right now.  They would have to be convicted by a jury before they would be sentenced.  I'm too lazy to look up New York's actual sentences, but in general you could get life or the death penalty for murder, while manslaughter could bring a sentence of "only" 10-15 years.

To Menard's original question: I don't know why they charged him with manslaughter rather than murder, but I doubt it had anything to do with racial prejudice.  Prosecutors are paid to get convictions (and to please the mayor).  Of course, we only know the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the facts of the case.  Ghouk raised one possibility: prosecutors thought juries might be reluctant to give a teenager a life sentence, and find a reason to acquit, so they decided to charge him with a crime that would make it easier for them to convict.  Here's another strong possibility: prosecutors agreed with the defense that they wouldn't charge him with murder if he would testify against the other members of the gang in their separate trials.  Remember, the final charges are as much a product of negotiation between the prosecutors and defense as anything.

On gay marriage: I'm not getting into it (neither the issue, nor the institution!)

I believe a way to put it into a better perspective is to point out that how much money you have has a much greater impact on the difference in charges/sentencing. Like I said, if the defense can convince a prosecutor that the prosecutor will FAIL at the higher charge, they are more likely to try for a reduced charge. This is what GOOD lawyers do, and when they do it WELL, they charge more for it, excluding the poorer people from their service. I mean, Vince Neil KILLED one person and severely injured 2 others from DWI, 30 F-ing days in jail, of which he served HALF of. I had an employee that was drunk and killed a drunk woman that was passed out and lying in the middle of the road, he got 10 years (a 'dime' in prison lingo  :teddyr: ). Of course he didn't have 2.6 million dollars to pay out in restitution either.

So, all in all, when comparing these cases by RACE, we should pay attention to the WEALTH of the defendants and see the pattern that shows.