on the one hand, i hope it's both. dude fucked around, now he's gonna find out.faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.
I'm with you there.just gonna get this one out of the way early in the thread "you're the real racist for pointing out racism" /s
on the one hand, i hope it's both. dude fucked around, now he's gonna find out.
on the other hand, i also hope we figure out a good way to rehabilitate people, because i know this isn't really going to do it. it's not restorative justice by an stretch.
(and this is true of a lot of people we send to prison...they come out in worse shape than when they went in)
I bet he gets less time than the black woman who submitted an absentee ballot after being released from prison. Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 yearsHe’ll get 10 years suspended, 2 years active probation, $5K fine at best. Sadly.
That is if SCOTUS does not find that burning crosses is protected 1st amendment speech due to it's long history in American culture.He’ll get 10 years suspended, 2 years active probation, $5K fine at best. Sadly.
That is if SCOTUS does not find that burning crosses is protected 1st amendment speech due to it's long history in American culture.
So what do you do with a person that has a sub 90 IQ and a bunch of hate? I'm guessing on the IQ part, but it fits. While he was clearly trying to intimidate his neighbors, it wasn't violent, and was done on his own property.For those who think we don't need hate crime laws, without them this would only be illegal burning of trash. Punishable by a fine.
Mississippi man pleads guilty to burning cross in yard to intimidate Black family (msn.com)
That is, assuming he is even registered to vote.Like you have to wonder which political party that guy voted for
I suspect someone with a sub 90 IQ wouldn't be smart enough to know the historical significance of cross burning. I think 2 years in jail is a fair punishmentSo what do you do with a person that has a sub 90 IQ and a bunch of hate? I'm guessing on the IQ part, but it fits. While he was clearly trying to intimidate his neighbors, it wasn't violent, and was done on his own property.
What's the right punishment? Should it be a fine, jail, treatment, or forced to relocate somewhere away from the people he hates?
I'm asking you specifically because I've never experienced racism like this, and I assume you have, at least to some degree.
I agree with that on the surface, but what happens when he comes back home and decides the that the people he hates ruined his live and wants revenge? It really seems like there should be some kind of therapy involved as well. Even if it's electroshock.I suspect someone with a sub 90 IQ wouldn't be smart enough to know the historical significance of cross burning. I think 2 years in jail is a fair punishment
What made you think the perp has a sub 90 IQ?So what do you do with a person that has a sub 90 IQ and a bunch of hate? I'm guessing on the IQ part, but it fits. While he was clearly trying to intimidate his neighbors, it wasn't violent, and was done on his own property.
What's the right punishment? Should it be a fine, jail, treatment, or forced to relocate somewhere away from the people he hates?
I'm asking you specifically because I've never experienced racism like this, and I assume you have, at least to some degree.
So you would assume that he just randomly decided to burn a cross to intimidate his black neighbors? He might not be smart, but he knew the significance of that act, even if he didn't know the details of the history. He knew what he was doing.I suspect someone with a sub 90 IQ wouldn't be smart enough to know the historical significance of cross burning. I think 2 years in jail is a fair punishment
I agree with that on the surface, but what happens when he comes back home and decides the that the people he hates ruined his live and wants revenge? It really seems like there should be some kind of therapy involved as well. Even if it's electroshock.
Violence does not have to be physical. This was most clearly a violent act.So what do you do with a person that has a sub 90 IQ and a bunch of hate? I'm guessing on the IQ part, but it fits. While he was clearly trying to intimidate his neighbors, it wasn't violent, and was done on his own property.
Why are we acting as if Greenman's sub 90 IQ claim were true? There's nothing in any article about this incident that indicates the perp is of diminished mental capacity.So you would assume that he just randomly decided to burn a cross to intimidate his black neighbors? He might not be smart, but he knew the significance of that act, even if he didn't know the details of the history. He knew what he was doing.
Hell, I would bet that most of the modern redneck racists with average IQ does not really know the history, they just know that the Clan burns crosses to intimidate black people, which is exactly what the 90 IQ person knows.
This is what I thought, being that it's Mississippi. I guess it'll depend on the judge in the end.He’ll get 10 years suspended, 2 years active probation, $5K fine at best. Sadly.
It's definitely a possibility. Incarceration rarely entails valuable rehabilitation and growth, and even if inmates make "good use" of their time incarcerated, they still have plenty of difficulties upon release. Many of them blame the victims of their crimes. That shouldn't keep us from holding criminals accountable.I agree with that on the surface, but what happens when he comes back home and decides the that the people he hates ruined his live and wants revenge? It really seems like there should be some kind of therapy involved as well. Even if it's electroshock.
on the other hand, i also hope we figure out a good way to rehabilitate people, because i know this isn't really going to do it. it's not restorative justice by an stretch.
(and this is true of a lot of people we send to prison...they come out in worse shape than when they went in)
I think that what Greenman reacts to is is a moral belief that hatred and revenge for evil doers does nothing to stem the actual evil that exists in the world. He used the assumption of a low IQ to make that point. How do you cure the stupidity of low IQ people for whom forethought about the consequences of evil acts won't happen in their thought process.
"So lets just all not wring our hands is hopeless and painful frustration, Let's act out a desire for retribution and let them rot in prison."
That doesn't agree with Greenman's moral character in my opinion. I base my conclusion of the fact that he suggested there should be some sort of attempt in our system of justice that might consider helping people who never grew up with an ability to not act in ways that are destructive and socially impermissible.
There may be better and worse ways to make such an argument, like not assuming someone has a low IQ, but it is, in my opinion, an assumption that if true makes a mockery of the justice system so many vengeful people who desire who are unable to conceptualize his moral concerns.
I don't see then, frankly, an apology for the evil of others in what Greenman has said, but an appeal for something better than vengeance for criminal acts. To my way of thinking that is a profoundly liberal ideal.