RE: Anti-noose bill in New York

RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:18:35 AM)
Here's an idea! If they're going to ban nooses in New York why don't they just ban crack cocaine too! Look at all the problems they'll solve by doing that! Maybe not though, Spitzer would probably want to give drug pushers automatic weapons.

KenDckey -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:18:57 AM)
Does this mean they are outlawing movies like "Hang Em High"? There was an intent of hatred in it. And lets look at the texts in schools, like when John Brown was hung. Just how far does this go?

mnottertail -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:20:38 AM)
yeah, or what about caboose or snoose? is that less than death penalty?

philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:24:14 AM)
..i don't know the movie so wont comment on that....however, merely discusing past incidences of hanging in school, the reasons why and the conequences, then how is that inciting hatred? As far as i understand it, this new law is not outlawing nooses per se, it is outlawing nooses displayed with an intent to incite racial hatred or to intimidate people along racial lines. In an earlier post i mentioned mens rea, already part of our legal system......clearly that applies.

Celeste43 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Celeste, but now you'll get "Anti-Hate- Anti -Hate" rallys. Actually my daughter was then in a Quaker High School and many of them came over to hold up "Hatred is not a family value" and such like placards in opposition. When they came back the second year to hold the hate rally at the inner city school, there were more protestors protesting them than the original protestors. But I don't really think they'll come back. Instead of a law mandating expensive trials and short sentences, they got blitzed with expensive fines for holding rallies without permits, for intruding on school grounds, paying all the triple time police costs etc. It's easier to hit them in the wallet and garners them no publicity as to restriction of free speech.

LadyEllen -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen But then we get into the sticky point of establising intent - my word against another's isnt good enough. Without corroborating evidence of intent, I dont see how it can be established? And the UK system - where the victim's view is taken as being sufficient to establish intent, is a problem too - you speak one word against certain groups and its a racist incident, even though that was not the intent. ..but we already have the concept of proving intent as part of the law. Mens Rea or something like that....the guilty mind. Murder and manslaughter are differentiated by intent. Given that proving intent is such a large part of modern prosecution anyway, i'm not sure that it is that difficult....or at least any more difficult. If one reports a crime here as being motivated by hate - then that is how it will be treated, and it is for the accused to prove that the crime was not motivated by hate. This is obviously a total reversal of the normal situation, in that intent is established for the purpose of prosecution on the word of the victim in this case, not on the basis of corroborating evidence. This goes too far in my view - but the important thing in my view is that intent is treated as important in such prosecutions. My argument is, that if the anti-noose legislation is to be enacted with the proviso of establishing intent then it would be far better. The question then becomes how one proves intent in the absence of any corroborating evidence that intent to threaten or harass was present? An example from a month back - my eldest was at Scouts, learning knots. They were taught, for heaven knows what reason, how to tie a hangman's noose. There does happen to be an Afro-Caribbean lad in the group. Now clearly it would be a nonsense to hold that the demonstration of the knot was aimed at threatening or harassing the lad concerned - yet without the requirement to prove intent, this would held to be the case. E

philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:28:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen An example from a month back - my eldest was at Scouts, learning knots. They were taught, for heaven knows what reason, how to tie a hangman's noose. There does happen to be an Afro-Caribbean lad in the group. Now clearly it would be a nonsense to hold that the demonstration of the knot was aimed at threatening or harassing the lad concerned - yet without the requirement to prove intent, this would held to be the case. E ....agreed......mens rea has to be the touchstone of this, and indeed all other, crimes.

LadyEllen -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen An example from a month back - my eldest was at Scouts, learning knots. They were taught, for heaven knows what reason, how to tie a hangman's noose. There does happen to be an Afro-Caribbean lad in the group. Now clearly it would be a nonsense to hold that the demonstration of the knot was aimed at threatening or harassing the lad concerned - yet without the requirement to prove intent, this would held to be the case. E ....agreed......mens rea has to be the touchstone of this, and indeed all other, crimes. Yes, and the OP does mention intent - my question was, how does the US system establish intent for such purposes by comparison to the UK system? My view is, that absent corroborating evidence it is impossible and indeed unwise to establish intent on the basis of one party's word or opinion over the other's, and is wide open to abuse on either side, leaving us able to deal only with the act per se. E

philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:35:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My view is, that absent corroborating evidence it is impossible and indeed unwise to establish intent on the basis of one party's word or opinion over the other's, and is wide open to abuse on either side, leaving us able to deal only with the act per se. ...again agreed. My take on it that truly hate motivated instances tend not to happen in a vacuum. Corroborating evidence will be there if it is a hate crime...if it isn't then it's clearly something else.

popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:40:46 AM)
Phil, I think they're making the mistake that black people were the "only" ones lynched with ropes. Or, that nooses are "illegal." Most states used nooses for capital punishment up until the early 1900's. I think there's still a few states that use hanging as capital punishment, New Hampshire does I know as I lived there for ten years. Look at the other thread about the school kid in New Jersey being suspended for drawing a picture, a picture of a guy holding a gun! Those people need to be Dope-Slapped! Once when I lived in New Hampshire I was at my gun club and the Preacher of the local Episcopal church came down and complained about us shooting on Sundays. The church was about a half mile away and they could hear us firing in the background. I said to him; "Reverand, with all due respect it's (because) of firearms that you can give your sermon on Sundays!" His reply; "You have a good point." "I never thought about it that way." But, being courteous we just moved up our firing to 11:30.

DomKen -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 12:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 I live in a small town in NY. A couple of years ago the village mayor decided that he would perform gay marriages and did a few dozen before the legislature shut him down. We were a little bemused by all the news vans clogging our 300 year old streets but no problem. Until some religious leader from somewhere in the MidWest came to town, decided to hold a hate rally and picked the middle school parking lot and fields to do so in. Without a permit obviously, interfering with town recreational leagues trying to hold games. Their followers decided that threatening to kill all the townfolk for not overthrowing the mayor was insufficient. And yes, some of the placards carried said that. The synagogue was defaced and had broken windows. Parents and ums going to baseball and softball games were grabbed and threatened. Etc. The year after he was back but not here, up at the county seat 15 miles north holding an illegal hate rally outside the high school and threatened black students, some of whom were hurt. So we are in no mood for any more such hate rallies and we want it stopped now. I have no doubt that this bill was inspired by these episodes and others of the same sort. This sounds an awful lot like Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. These scum have done their thing all over but are always very careful to not get seen breaking any laws and to sue into oblivion anyone who messes with them. If you have witnesses to Phelps or any of his followers breaking any laws you should get you local prosecutor to file charges against them.

philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 12:11:40 PM)
Popeye....i tend to agree that people can take things a bit too seriously. However if someone uses a noose for the sole purpose of intimidating someone in a racial way, then that to me is different. If it can be prosecuted using existing laws then no new law is necessary, if it is somehow legal then that has to change.

divi -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 12:12:31 PM)
great now i gotta move !

Archer -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 2:00:39 PM)
Philosophy the problem comes in when the sole need for something being considered HATE is when the victim FEELS hated. Mens Rea is the cornerstone for catagorizing motivation for EXISTING Crimes. One Homocide vs another homocide differenciated by the motive behind the already criminal behaviour of killing another person. In this case they are making a new crime based soley on the thought behind an act that is perfectly legal otherwise. The difference is the difference between did you intend to kill the man and did you intend to draw the noose on your notebook. Lack of intent is a defense only in catagory not to the criminality of the act. The result of criminalizing the act of displaying it with intent is already on the books in most places. Assault is the threat of violence with the means to carry out the threat. So display of a noose in a threatening manner fits it is already a crime it only takes a little thought to make the case.

philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 3:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer So display of a noose in a threatening manner fits it is already a crime it only takes a little thought to make the case. ...then as i have said, no new law is necessary. All that is necessary is to enforce the laws already on the books. (post 32 this thread)

Marc2b -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 4:33:38 PM)
quote: Its the "intent to threaten or harass" bit that concerns me - for instance, I could in theory display such a symbol to deliberately threaten or harass, but when the cops come (assuming those I'm threatening/harassing havent beaten me to a pulp by then), simply deny such intent to evade prosecution? How will intent be established such that prosecution can take place? Yes - accompanying evidence of intent could be used (KKK get up for instance), but if a bunch of sweet old ladies does it with intent, how do we establish that they should be punished? Don’t mind me, I’m just griping. We already have laws against harassing people and it just irks me to see politicians grandstanding while some pimply headed dink gets to whack off over how his little stunt made the national news. In some ways I feel sorry for them. Their lives must be so lame that this is the only way the can feel powerful – figuratively poking people from behind with a stick and then running away. I imagine Butters (AKA Professor Chaos) of South Park when he is seventeen. I certainly have no problem prosecuting people who deliberately harass others - regardless of their motivation for doing so. Ultimately it is the intent of the act (to inflict fear), not the intent behind the act (‘I hate [inset derogatory name for group of people here]’) that should concern us and be prosecuted. The intent behind the act is useful for investigation but should have no bearing on punishment.

Marc2b -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 4:45:52 PM)
quote: So does this mean an artist can't do a painting about lynchings or any other incident of human suffering where a noose was part of it? A most excellent point. The thought occurred to me as well (I work in a building with two art galleries and thirty artist studios). People seem to have an inability to distinguish (or for political reasons, do not want to distinguish) the difference between personal offence and deliberate harassment. If someone is offended by a painting of a World War Two scene, hanging in an art gallery, that has a swastika (e.g. on the side of a tank) – that’s their problem since the intent is to display a scene. If someone sneaks onto a Jewish family’s lawn at night with gasoline and matches and creates a burning swastika on their lawn, then their intent is clearly to harass.

Marc2b -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 4:49:14 PM)
quote: Well my bondage knots for dummies book idea just went out the window. I’d buy it. Is there a BDSM for Dummies book? There ought to be. Might save many an experimenting couple some grief (not to mention injuries).

popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 5:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Popeye....i tend to agree that people can take things a bit too seriously. However if someone uses a noose for the sole purpose of intimidating someone in a racial way, then that to me is different. If it can be prosecuted using existing laws then no new law is necessary, if it is somehow legal then that has to change. Phil, having someone hold up a noose in front of me wouldn't intimidate me in the least. I carry a gun. People need to stop being such wimps. I don't like to see people picking their noses in public. Can we make (me) a law so that everytime I see that I can go over and slap the shit out of them?

Alumbrado -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/24/2007 5:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen An example from a month back - my eldest was at Scouts, learning knots. They were taught, for heaven knows what reason, how to tie a hangman's noose. There does happen to be an Afro-Caribbean lad in the group. Now clearly it would be a nonsense to hold that the demonstration of the knot was aimed at threatening or harassing the lad concerned - yet without the requirement to prove intent, this would held to be the case. E ....agreed......mens rea has to be the touchstone of this, and indeed all other, crimes. Yes, and the OP does mention intent - my question was, how does the US system establish intent for such purposes by comparison to the UK system? My view is, that absent corroborating evidence it is impossible and indeed unwise to establish intent on the basis of one party's word or opinion over the other's, and is wide open to abuse on either side, leaving us able to deal only with the act per se. E In addition to the act and the intent, US courts are supposed to rely on a 'reasonableness' criteria. Part of that is looking at all the circumstances. On paper, no one (even an openly avowed racist) should be convicted just for having a text book containing an historical picture of a lynching. Now, if they they tape the picture to the locker of a minority student with a note that says 'You're Next', for example, a case could be made for criminal sanctions. The locker and note would satisfy the standard that a reasonable person would believe that the intent was to intimidate. Take the above example, and add in the element that the picture, the locker, the tape, and the note were all props in a documentary film, and criminal charges should fall apart. Now add in politics and human foibles, and toss all the above out the window.[;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125