The point of hate crime laws isn’t to punish criminals based on what’s in their hearts.
The point of hate crime laws is to recognize that targeting victims based on race/color/creed/gender/sexuality etc. is an act of terror against an entire community rather than just an individual victim.
If this asshole targeted his victim because the victim was Black then That. Is. A. Hate. Crime.
I read the transcript, it was prior intent to do bodily harm to a POC is this instance, so the Hate Crime statute stands, the judge decided to go lenient on said freshman Nazi dbag, the why will likely never surface. The judge [possesses the power] can and often do reduce sentences for various reasons, again we’ll never know that, I don’t buy the bullshit reason they gave…
P.S. An investigation of the judges finances would be where I’d start the looking, look for a sudden cash influx into their accounts…
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003 , requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person.
Rotary has changed a lot in 39 years. They also didn’t allow women at that point. I don’t have any direct knowledge of the Birmingham club specifically, but my experience is that this does not reflect the modern Rotary organization as a whole. Most clubs aren’t even in the US, and two of the biggest growth areas are Africa and South Asia. (My expertise here comes from over 15 years of Rotary membership; the club I belong to is very diverse and progressive).
Someone who attacks a Black person or other minority in order to impress a white supremacist is also actively trying to intimidate members of the targeted community which fits the standard definition of a hate crime.
SSDD.
It’s very reassuring that for you, this is just some sort of mere esoteric thought exercise regarding the law and human rights.
That kind of privilege must be a wonderful thing to have.
I suggest imprisoning all the white supremacists together in a game of “Who’s the Supremacist Now?”. When it’s down to one, slam the door forever.
So the judge gets everything she wants.
Just because Trump’s not President doesn’t mean his influence won’t permeate society for a long time.
I don’t know about contempt of court in this case but I a got a helluva lot of contempt for that sorry-ass judge Nancy Torresen. I wonder how sorry she’ll feel when one of the guys with a broken jaw waits for that nazi Leo to get released and then beats the living shit out of him. Will she be understanding of that behavior?
Legally, in cases where intent is an element of the crime, being intoxicated absolutely does NOT provide a defense. The only time it can is if you were forcibly intoxicated. In other words, if someone drugged you against your will. If you voluntarily got drunk, then you are still legally responsible for anything you do after that. There might be a few exceptions, I’d have to pull out my Crim Law book, and that was a year ago, and it’s been a rough year. But yeah, it’s really unfathomable (legally unfathomable…I have no doubt that race is the main factor) why the judge even considered that.
She’ll apparently be more understanding if he has a few drinks first.
The victim moved away because he did not feel safe. Wow, wonder why that might be?
No Justice No Peace
A fine point you got there mate and if they buy some high quality spirits it might come in a good hefty bottle. All the better to get that fools attention in those milliseconds before his lights go out. Perhaps a go fund me effort to get a well made bottle of spirits.
10 years seems right for the crime. 3 years on the other hand…
I would like to see Maine and other states look at mandatory minimums for violent crimes and hate crimes in particular. I’d also like to see some 3-strike laws for violent crimes. I’d also like to see some real counseling and rehabilitation before we get to the third fucking strike.
are you kidding? i criticize this all the time.
i mean heck, he could have voted and gotten a longer sentence
the problem - and im just spit balling here, making this up off the cuff based off your line of argument that nobody ever has thought of before let alone offered disingenuously - is about relative sentencing and the skin color of those who consistently get shorter relative sentences
he’s being excused because hitler ate his homework or something. so rah rah america good job yet again
( oh, and this happens to be statistically the case. not a sort of one off this one judge’s bad call. here’s a good book on the subject if you’re interested… https://newjimcrow.com/ )
Remember back in the day when “conservatives” used to worry about bleeding heart judges going all soft on crime?
I really hope the victims sue the shit out of him in civil court for medical damages, emotional trauma, loss of income - everything.
Those who occupy positions of power have no reason to push back against ever-harsher punitive sentences when those sentences are only ever applied to “other people” instead of to people within their own peer groups.
I agree with your core tenet that our criminal justice system needs revamped to be more compassionate. But I’ll save my sympathy for Black people killed just for living their lives. When the Philando Castilles and Breonna Taylors of the world survive their encounters with law enforcement, then I’ll worry about this asshole who assaulted an innocent man for being the “wrong” race maybe getting too much time. I find my level of compassion has limits right now and I’m going to keep on practicing triage.
