Hate crimes

It's been a rough few weeks here in the Tree City dealing with some pretty horrific news. A few days ago, a 23 year old Kent State student was attacked in downtown Kent, apparently for no specific reason, and beaten severely enough to put him in a coma. He died a few days later. The suspects arrested were not from Kent (both are from Akron and one was a student at the University of Akron), but a few days later there were reports of armed robberies on the KSU campus. While I'm disturbed by this to say the least, the issue that jumped out at me and several other readers has to do with race. The KSU student attacked was white, while the two men charged with the initial assault are, you guessed it, black. The same was true with the robberies on campus: white victims, black assailants (those 4 men were all young, ages 17-18, and three of them are KSU students). What I've seen in the article comments got me thinking as a lot of people are calling for these to be labeled "hate crimes". There is truth to the fact that if this were the other way around (white assailants and black victims) racism would most certainly be called in as a factor. No doubt about it. Why it doesn't happen when the victim is white is beyond me. Of course the investigation is ongoing and we still have to learn what the real motive was behind this horrible crime. Was it racially motivated? I honestly don't know. My gut feeling tells me it isn't; that it was more random. But what's really been on my mind is the whole "hate crime" thing.

Hate crimes are basically something done solely as a result of someone's race, religion, ideology, gender, sexual orientation. Just recently, a bill was made law that extended "protection" to people based on their sexual orientation. But honestly, do we even need hate crime legislation? I honestly don't believe we do. In the end, a crime is a crime and should be punished accordingly regardless of the motive. Whether someone was killed because of their race or because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time is irrelevant; all that matters is that they were killed senselessly. Hate crime legislation is just a way for us to pat ourselves on the back and feel like we're protecting the little guy. It's also a way for politicians to pander to specific groups to appear to champion their cause. In the end, however, it doesn't protect the little guy any more than already existing laws that govern crime. Why should someone get a lesser punishment for murder because it wasn't racially motivated? I mean, really, the only place it should come up would be in arguing self defense. But beyond that, motive shouldn't affect how a criminal is punished. It's either a crime or it isn't; it's not more of a crime because it was motivated by hatred for something like race or gender. And why is hatred of someone because of their race, age, gender, etc. so bad, but simply hating someone because you hate them is "less" of a crime? Sorry, cold-blooded murder regardless of motive is still cold-blooded murder and should be dealt with accordingly.

Hate crime legislation has also been shown to not be a deterrent in preventing the very thing they are designed to. Why? Because the people who commit hate crimes are criminals; they don't care about the punishment, otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. This comes from the super-liberal website, SocialistWorker.org published 9 August 2009:

In 1999, some 21 states and the District of Columbia had hate-crimes laws on the books. Today, 45 states have enacted hate-crime laws in some form or other. Yet the trend has not been a lowering of hate crimes. In 2006, 7,722 hate-crime incidents were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2006--an 8 percent increase from 2005.

The data: 2,640 were anti-Black (up from 2,630 in 2005); 967 were anti-Jewish (up from 848 in 2005); 890 were anti-white (up from 828 in 2005); 747 were anti-male homosexual (up from 621 in 2005); 576 were anti-Hispanic (up from 522 in 2005); 156 were anti-Islamic (up from 128 in 2005). Hate groups also appear to be on the rise. According to the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups has increased by 54 percent since 2000.

The full article can be found here. This next quote comes from a column written in the Washington Post by Richard Cohen. He wrote this column 4 August 2009 shortly after the shooting this summer at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. I felt his column pretty much summed up exactly what I was thinking, so you should have a read!

Let us assume that the "community" is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn's attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

So, while I am saddened immesely by the death of this KSU student, his murderers should be punished according to the laws dealing with cold-blooded murder, not as a hate crime. I really don't care why they did it; the fact is they did it and now must pay the penalty. I also want to send my condolences and deepest sympathies to the family of the victim, Christopher Kernich. I hope and pray they are able to again find some peace and that justice is served. Our community has been attacked and this crime has truly saddened me even though I did not even know Mr. Kernich existed until a few days ago. No family should have to worry about sending their loved one(s) to a college town like Kent or anywhere for that matter. May God bless and comfort you in your time of need.

A little venting...

I haven't talked about what's going on in Iraq in a long time. So long, in fact, the last time I ever wrote anything about it was just after it started and I was on my "pre-blog" website opinion page. It's actually still there! Anyway, I felt compelled to make a comment after something one of my professors said in class on Wednesday. We were talking about the concept of democracy and whether or not "more democracy" was better and if democracy works. His "good" example of democracy "working," in terms of benefiting the most people, was the election of Harold Washington, the first black mayor of Chicago in 1981. Before that "good" example, his "bad" example of democracy "not working" or benefiting that many people was the current situation in Iraq. He said the "average Iraqi is worse off" than they were under Saddam. It always irritates me when people say that because I know what they're basing that belief off of: media reports of violence and little else. There have actually been few formal studies and polls to ask "the average Iraqi" about their situation now versus before the ouster of Saddam in 2003. One was done in 2004 by ABC News (I included a link to it at the bottom of the page), one year into the operation, and it found that 70% of those surveyed felt they were "better off" than they were under Saddam. Now, of course it must be pointed out this was four years ago and things are certainly different. My main point, however, is not that I'm trying to prove that things are "better" for the average Iraqi, but to show that saying "things are worse" is by no means a definitive statement or free from debate.

The problem with basing the assumption that "things were better" under Saddam is that, to me, it demonstrates a lack of perspective and understanding of the way Iraq functioned prior to the U.S. invasion and also how the media works. How? Well, remember that Iraq was a dictatorship under Saddam. He had control of virtually every government office and operation, which included the media. Do you think that Saddam is going to allow his media to report on his attacks on Kurdish rebels or his executions of rivals or dissenters? I don't think so. That also translated into the rest of the world not being "on top of things" like we currently are with so many media outlets now in Iraq reporting almost instantaneously what is generally going on. In other words, just because we didn't hear about a lot of violence before 2003 doesn't mean it wasn't there. I've read estimates that Saddam killed between 300,000 and 1,000,000 of his own people while he was in power. That hardly says "relative peace" to me. It should also be pointed out that the media generally doesn't work by reporting rank-and-file stories; they work by reporting unusual and sensational stories. My best example is when we hear about a plane crash. Plane crashes are VERY unusual, but if we hear about maybe two within the same month or a few weeks apart, suddenly people start talking about how "unsafe" it is to fly. Look at what happened after September 11th and how that affected people's perceptions of flying. The media focused on the unusual and sesational side of that story (in terms of airline security) or any story like it. They didn't focus on the fact that there are several THOUSAND flights per day in the U.S. and all but the ones that crashed made it...in other words, you have like a 99.9999% chance of getting to your destination safely if you fly. See how the media can falsely alter our perceptions? I see the same things happening with the reports on Iraq. We are hearing about the violence and the sensational side of things, but very little about the day to day stuff. The few times I've read stories about the progress that has been made as reported by people who have been there for some time (troops), they usually are found on the back pages or some Bush-hater labels it "propaganda." Not always, of course, but that seems to be a recurring theme. Basically, I think there's a lot more good happening there than we find out about because it's not "exciting" or "shocking."

Just to be clear: I'm NOT saying things are find and dandy for the average Iraqi, but I am saying we can't really say for sure yet that it's absolutely worse for them than it was under Saddam.

Here's a link to the survey ABC News conducted in 2004 and a link to an editorial that rang true to me:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/13/1092340466424.html?oneclick=true

WOW it's been awhile!

Current mood: contemplative

WOW, it's been two months since I posted a blog at all and that last one wasn't much. I really do have a lot on my mind and it's getting to the point where I need to express myself of I'm just going explode!! SO, hopefully I'll be posting some more soon in more details, but I'll give all my loyal blog-watchers (all three of you!!) a "sneak preview" of sorts.

First, I was just reading the blog of Dave Ruller, who is the city manager for Kent, Ohio. I just want to say what a great idea it was for him to start it in the first place, plus it has TONS of great information and ideas on helping Kent improve as a community. I just wish I would read it more often! I think I'm going to start reading it every day I can, just like I read the news everyday on Cleveland.com, Ohio.com, and RecordPub.com. If any reading this are interested, his site is at www.kent360.com. GREAT site for anyone interested in Kent! I, for one, have great hopes for Kent and think it's a great place. It has so much potential still that hasn't been realized yet.

Here's some other things on my mind:

Racism at Roosevelt? For those who didn't hear, someone (looks like maybe three people) broke into my alma mater Roosevelt High School last week and spray-painted racist graffiti on the walls in one of the hallways. To me, it seemed like an unfortunate, yet isolated incident. Now, though, the floodgates have been opened and people are acting like Roosevelt has this huge racial tension and problem when it really doesn't. Many people are also making it look like it's only one way; this is, white racism towards blacks or other minorities. In reality, yes, racism does exist at Roosevelt and in Kent, but find a diverse commmunity where racism DOESN'T exist at all? In addition, the racism and prejudice come from all races, not just one. I heard many racist statements from black kids when I was in middle school for instance. Is it widespread? HARDLY. Kent is a very liberal town and as such is VERY "politically correct" and racism (or anything even romotely close to it!) is NOT politically correct. Most students, teachers, and community members have been stunned by this latest event. Unfortunately, it seems in our society at the moment, racism and derogatory remarks towards white people (especially men) are OK, but not to anyone else (white people are the worst perpetrators of this, in my opinion). Well, guess what? It's WRONG towards ANYONE or any group!! Until Kent (and our country for that matter) realizes that racism has to be dealt with from every angle, it's not going to go away. Racism and other forms of like prejudice are problems that every race, group, and community faces, not just us white people! Am I making myself clear that I think all that stuff is WRONG?!? We're all children of God for goodness sakes...it's time we started treating each other more like good family members than dividing each other up into races and the old "us and them" mentality!! Watch the Record-Courier for a letter to the editor sometime soon!

Iraq: I've been quiet about this for awhile, but I have to say something. This deserves its own blog though, so I'll keep it brief here. It seems to me we're suffering from "simplistic" thinking; that is, the false idea that if we didn't attack Iraq, radicals in the Middle East would hate us less or that if we "just believe hard" that we can have peace (or just let everyone do whatever they want) then POOF we'll have peace. I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately, it's not like that. The hatred towards America and the West in the Middle East stems all the way back to the Crusades, which first started in AD 1099. Yeah, almost 1,000 years ago, yet to many in the Middle East, this is considered a "recent event" that is discussed like it happened in the last few years. It would be like us still hating the British for all the destruction from the War of 1812 (it is worth noting along that line that the original third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is hardly ever sung or even known anymore because it speaks pretty bluntly against the British and was de-emphasized as we became allies with the UK). I have tons more to say on this, but what the US has done in Iraq so far has been shortchanged by the media (who only report on the bad stuff) and by the vocal-yet-destructive minority that continues to cling to their destructive and backwards ways. The only reason it seems things are "worse" in Iraq than before the 2003 invasion is that prior to 2003, Iraq had state-run media, meaning the only news that came out was filtered by Saddam. Hmmm, think he's going to broadcast to the world what he was really doing to his people? O don't think so. The Chicago Tribune stated that it is estimated that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 of his own citizens. Instead of a car bomb going off in the marketplace, family members just disappeared in the middle of the night. ANYWAY, more to come on that. I've really been thinking a lot about it and analyzing it from different angles and perspectives.

I think it's important to gather as much info as I can before making my opinions "public."

WOW that turned out to be long! By the way, I have just one week of classes left and then finals. I'll start heading home probably around April 6th or so. YEAH!!!! I'm hoping to be home sometime in between April 10-12, the earlier the better. Anyone have any good job leads in or around Kent?? Also, I'm going to ENGLAND from April 30-May 12 to visit my friends the Wilcocks (I first met them on my mission while I was in New Mexico)! I CAN'T WAIT!!!!!!!!! How exciting!!!

Comments

LDS Drama Queen (Becky); March 26, 2007

Yeah, I have a few things to say about that Roosevelt thing too....grrr