Why This Case Exposes the Flaws in Hate Crime Statistics
The Department of Justice (DOJ) provides police departments across the United States with a manual called "Hate Crime Data Collection Guidel...
The Department of Justice's Manual on Hate Crime Data Collection
The Department of Justice (DOJ) provides police departments across the United States with a manual called "Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines And Training Manual." The purpose of this manual is to educate officers on identifying hate crimes and reporting them to the federal government. Hate crime statistics, which are often cited in the media, are collected based on this reporting. These statistics have been widely discussed during the Trump presidency and continue to be referenced today, with some suggesting that they demonstrate white supremacy as the country's greatest threat.
Exercises in the DOJ Manual
The Department of Justice (DOJ) manual contains a section on exercises that are used to illustrate hate crimes law to police departments. One of these exercises involves two gang members assaulting a random Hindu person with a baseball bat. The exercise states that the juveniles reported committing the assault because they want Hindu people to go back where they came from. The article points out the lack of discussion about the DOJ manual and raises curiosity about how hate crime numbers are determined.
Categorizing Incidents as Hate Crimes
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has instructed officers to categorize an incident as a hate crime due to derogatory comments made about the Hindu community. The DOJ's manual states that if someone beats another person while yelling "go back where you came from," it qualifies as a hate crime. This categorization is based on the understanding that such actions and comments demonstrate hatred towards a particular community.
The Case of Sue Young
In a recent incident in New York City, a 51-year-old Asian American woman named Sue Young was verbally and physically attacked by three black teenage girls while traveling on a subway train in Greenwich Village. The incident occurred in a supposedly safe area of the city, and Young was accompanied by her husband and 11-year-old twin daughters. The teenagers started screaming and cursing at Young, and despite her attempts to ignore them, they told her to go back where she came from. One of the teenagers, a 16-year-old girl, then physically assaulted Young, and also attacked a bystander who recorded the incident.
Questioning the Hate Crime Classification
The incident being discussed is being questioned as a hate crime. The attacker told the victim to go back to her country, which is seen as relating to the victim's national origin, race, or religion. However, the New York police have decided not to charge the teenager involved with a hate crime, despite finding and arresting her.
Reliability of Hate Crime Statistics
The content provided suggests that there is a clear case of a hate crime, where someone was told to "go back where you came from" and then physically assaulted. The Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines classify this type of scenario as a hate crime. However, despite the established evidence, it is implied that this incident may not be officially recorded as a hate crime.
The content provided questions the trustworthiness of government statistics on crime, specifically focusing on the reported "anti-Asian hate-crime epidemic." The author raises doubts about the claim that this epidemic is caused by MAGA Republicans residing in New York and San Francisco. They also question whether MAGA Republicans are responsible for random assaults on Asians and whether the data can be trusted.
Analysis of Hate Crime Statistics
According to a recent report by The City Journal, statistics show that black perpetrators account for 27.5 percent of violent attacks against Asians. However, Asians commit less than 0.1 percent of violent attacks against blacks, suggesting that proximity does not play a significant role in these attacks. The report also reveals that most violent attacks against individuals of a particular racial group are committed by other members of that group, except in the case of Asians where a plurality of attacks are committed by blacks. In fact, the data shows that blacks are responsible for 305 percent more violent crime against Asians than what neighborhood demographics would predict. On the other hand, whites and Hispanics commit significantly fewer attacks against Asians than expected.
Unreliability of Hate-Crime Statistics
The content suggests that hate-crime statistics are unreliable and do not accurately represent the true extent of anti-Asian racial violence, particularly when it is committed by young black individuals. The case of Sue Young is presented as an example of this phenomenon.
Flaws in Hate-Crime Reporting System
The article discusses the reliability of hate-crime statistics, pointing out that the majority of police departments report zero hate crimes each year. The author highlights that in 2019, less than 15% of the nearly 16,000 jurisdictions reported a single hate crime to the Department of Justice (DOJ), despite participating in the DOJ's reporting system. The article suggests that this small sample size raises doubts about the accuracy of hate-crime statistics.
According to the provided content, some police departments are not verifying hate crimes as a legal matter when reporting statistics. The hate crime statistics are based on reports of hate crimes, not necessarily proven cases. The Department of Justice manual states that a police officer can code a case as "hateful" without requiring a jury or judge to confirm it as a hate crime.
The author questions the effectiveness and purpose of the hate crimes reporting system, highlighting its flaws and inconsistencies. They argue that hate crimes should not be given special attention and that crimes motivated by indifference to human life should be recorded separately. The author suggests that hate crimes are not accurately measured and questions why they are prioritized over other types of crimes.
The Perspective of Sue Young and Her Husband
Sue Young and her husband have given interviews in which they absolve their attacker of personal responsibility for the assault they experienced. They believe that the attacker's lack of privilege and their outlook on the world may have contributed to their actions. The couple does not consider the incident to be a hate crime and express contentment with not fighting back during the assault.
The couple in question is making a controversial statement about hate crimes, suggesting that the real purpose of categorizing hate crimes is not to measure hate, but rather to measure victimhood. They argue that hate crimes are primarily focused on certain demographic groups that are considered the primary voting blocs of the Democratic Party. The couple also implies that if someone belongs to a privileged group, such as being Asian or white, they are immune to hate crimes. Furthermore, they suggest that victims of hate crimes should rationalize and justify the actions of their attackers based on their ethnicity.
Understanding Crime and Poverty
The article discusses the flawed reasoning behind using "lack of privilege" as a justification for violent crimes. It highlights that many poor people do not engage in violent behavior and presents data from a Twitter account called "Monitoring Bias." The data shows that in New York City, where the poverty rates for Asians and blacks are similar, the arrest rate for murder among blacks was 13 times higher than for Asians in 2020. The article challenges the assumption that a difficult life automatically leads to violent behavior and emphasizes the need for a more nuanced understanding of crime and poverty.
The provided content discusses the issue of black violent crime rates and argues that it is disproportionately high even when considering income level and economic class. The author suggests that these acts of violence are not driven by poverty or personal struggles but rather by a sense of entitlement and lack of fear of punishment. The author draws comparisons to other instances of lawlessness, such as wealthy Antifa protesters or looters in high-end stores, to highlight the perceived lack of consequences for these actions.
Awareness and Action Against Violence
The article discusses the issue of violence on subways and the lack of acknowledgment and understanding of the problem by some individuals. It suggests that people have been misled by false information, including from the Department of Justice's hate crimes reporting system, which hinders their ability to recognize and address the issue. The article warns that this lack of awareness and action will only lead to more violence and that people will eventually feel the need to defend themselves against such attacks.
The content provided discusses a situation where a family, referred to as "The Youngs," did not respond aggressively to black teenagers who were harassing them. The author suggests that people are becoming tired of this kind of passive behavior and views it as submission to lawless and violent individuals. The author predicts that more incidents like this will occur in the future, and criticizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) for potentially labeling any response as hateful or indicative of white supremacy. The author concludes by blaming the DOJ for these future incidents.