Woman murdered man in subway because he looked muslim/hindu

The category of hate crime is just a different mens rea consideration added by statutory law which increases culpability for a crime. It's nothing particularly radical.

Edit: Also that post wasn't in response to you in particular. Just a general statement against the people whining about how we have hate crimes.
 
Strange ... Germans stand as close to the tracks as possible in order to get in first. Station staff even had to paint a white line on the floor that marks the zone where people absolutely shouldn't stand for their own safety.
That is certainly not how everybody acts, especially during rush hour.

A case in point is Queensboro Plaza. The N and the Q have transfers there, as well as the 7 train to make a perfect storm of commuting subway nightmares. Many of those who took the other lines wish to get on the already jam packed E or F trains to get to work. When they hear a train pulling into the station, they start shoving their way down the packed stairs that forces even more people onto the already completely packed platform. Perhaps a lucky 3 or 4 who are standing exactly where the doors are going to open will be able to shove their way on. Given 12 subway cars and 3 doors on each car, that means that perhaps 150 out of the thousands of people waiting will get on each train. On the older trains, the younger and braver males vault the gates between the cars and stand in the space between the two train cars.

During non rush hour, you can usually spot the tourists and those who haven't lived there very long. They are the ones who are constantly standing right on the edge of the platforms looking expectantly down the tunnel for the next train. They don't occasionally turn around to ensure some crazy person isn't stalking them like the locals usually do. OTOH the locals will wait in the middle of the platform unless they take a quick peek down the tracks before returning to their relatively safe refuge.

People don't get shoved onto the tracks all that often. But when they do, the Daily News and the Post will both carry similar front pages to the ones you just posted.
 
Murder is murder.

The whole concept of "hate crime" is totally idiotic and in practice its even worse. You cant objectively decide what is "hate crime" and what is not.

We can never know peoples real motives. So she says she killed them because they looked certain way, she gets at least 20 years. She doesn't say why she killed them, she gets a 15 year minimum sentence.
 
Murder is murder.

The whole concept of "hate crime" is totally idiotic and in practice its even worse. You cant objectively decide what is "hate crime" and what is not.

We can never know peoples real motives. So she says she killed them because they looked certain way, she gets at least 20 years. She doesn't say why she killed them, she gets a 15 year minimum sentence.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is the bedrock of common law criminal liability.
 
Murder is murder.
But manslaughter isn't murder.

If hate was a motive, then the manslaughter may be considered murder. That usually means a higher sentence.
 
No, this is roughly how it works in states that conform to the Model Penal Code (which I believe NY does):

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.

Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.

Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
 
Isn't this story kinda old?
 
You are probably thinking of the incident earlier in the month.

Menendez has a history of mental problems and violence:



Long before Erika Menendez was charged with pushing a stranger to his death under an oncoming train at a Queens elevated station, she had years of contact with New York City’s mental health and law enforcement establishments. She was treated by the psychiatric staffs of at least two city hospitals, and caseworkers visited her family home in Queens to provide further help. She was also arrested at least three times, according to the police, twice after violent confrontations.

Ms. Menendez’s years of inner and outer turmoil culminated in the deadly assault on an unsuspecting man who was waiting for a train on Thursday. Beyond stirring fear among riders on crowded platforms across the city, the attack also raised new questions about the safeguards in a patchwork private and public mental health system that is supposed to allow mentally ill people to live as freely as possible in the community while protecting them and the public.

A similar attack more than a decade ago led to a law aimed at forcing mentally ill people with a history of violence to undergo treatment, but it is widely acknowledged to cover only a small portion of those who need help.

D. J. Jaffe, the executive director of the Mental Illness Policy Organization, an advocacy group, said that thousands of troubled individuals with violent histories were released from mental health facilities, and that beyond requiring that they have a home to go to and an outpatient care plan in place, there was little oversight of their activities.

“No one monitors if they are taking their medication,” Mr. Jaffe said. “Or follows up to see if they are a danger to themselves or others.”

The case of Ms. Menendez, 31, puts renewed attention on a mental health system that is a loose amalgam of hospitals, supported housing, shelters and other advocacy and support groups, in which mentally ill people often bounce from one to the other and ultimately fall through the cracks. It is not known precisely where she fit in.

City officials said it would be misleading to conclude that anyone was at fault in her treatment.

“People get well and then they get sick again,” Ana Marengo, a spokeswoman for the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs Bellevue and Elmhurst Hospital Centers, said Sunday. Ms. Menendez had been treated at both hospitals, according to friends and law enforcement officials.

Ms. Marengo declined to confirm or deny whether Ms. Menendez had been treated at either hospital, citing confidentiality rules, but said that patients who were treated at city hospitals often were discharged into the care of outpatient mental health providers.

There were ample warnings over the years concerning Ms. Menendez.

In 2003, according to the police, she attacked another stranger, Daniel Conlisk, a retired firefighter, as he took out his garbage in Queens.

“I was covered with blood,” Mr. Conlisk recalled on Sunday. “She was screaming the whole time.”

Just two months earlier, Ms. Menendez was accused of hitting and scratching another man in Queens. She was also arrested on cocaine possession charges the same year.

Since then, according to friends and people familiar with her record, she has been cared for at mental health facilities in Manhattan and Queens as her problems worsened.

Between 2005 and February this year, the police responded five times to calls from relatives reporting difficulties in dealing with Ms. Menendez, reportedly stemming from her failure to take certain medication, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to speak publicly about her medical history. In one of these instances, in 2010, she threw a radio at one of the responding officers, the official said.


“She has been in and out of institutions,” another law enforcement official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Within the past year, she was discharged from Bellevue, according to a person with knowledge of her medical history.

An attendant at the psychiatric ward at Elmhurst Hospital Center declined to go into detail about Ms. Menendez’s treatment there, but said that “all I can tell you is we know her very well.”

Ms. Menendez is being charged with murder as a hate crime and, if convicted, faces a possible sentence of life in prison.

For prosecutors, the decision to charge her with a hate crime was based on statements she gave to the police after her arrest on Saturday, when she claimed she attacked the victim, Sunando Sen, 46, because she hated Muslims and Hindus. Mr. Sen was born in India and, according to a roommate, was raised Hindu.

A family friend who identified himself only as Mike said Ms. Menendez was not a racist. But he acknowledged her troubled mental history and calls to the police regarding her behavior. He said she was supposed to be monitored as part of an outpatient program for the mentally ill run by Elmhurst.

“We had someone come to the house, spend six minutes, asked how she was doing, giving medication,” he said by telephone. “I used to tell them, ‘Listen, she’s not home.’ And then they would come back the next week. They’d leave you the medication and come back in the next week.”

The exact nature of what Ms. Menendez was being treated for could not be learned. It was also unclear if she was currently on medication or had lapsed in her treatment.

When she was arraigned on Saturday night, the judge ordered that she be held without bail and undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The attack, which occurred at the 40th Street-Lowery Street station in Sunnyside, was the second time in less than a month that a commuter was pushed to his death at a New York City subway station.

In the first case, Ki-Suck Han, 58, of Elmhurst, Queens, died under the Q train at the 49th Street and Seventh Avenue station on Dec. 3. Naeem Davis, 30, was charged with second-degree murder in that case.

Both attacks are reminiscent of two strikingly similar subway attacks that occurred in 1999 and galvanized the city.

In the attack with the most lasting effect, Andrew Goldstein pushed Kendra Webdale, 32, into the path of an N train at the 23rd Street station that January, killing her.

The death of Ms. Webdale, a journalist and photographer who had moved to the city from Buffalo, unnerved New Yorkers who had come to think of their city as the safest it had been in years.

Mr. Goldstein was convicted of second-degree murder, a decision that was overturned. But he ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Although he stopped taking medication for schizophrenia, the insanity defense did not convince a jury.

Yet in the outrage after Ms. Webdale’s death, the State Legislature passed Kendra’s Law, which allows judges to order closely supervised outpatient treatment for mentally ill patients who had a history of refusing to take their medication and who had been put in jail or hospitalized repeatedly or become violent.

The latest attacks show the flaws in the system, according to some advocates for the mentally ill.

“If you are involuntarily committed, once you are no longer dangerous, you are discharged,” Mr. Jaffe said.

Ms. Menendez often stayed in Rego Park, Queens, with her mother and stepfather in their 14-story apartment building. That was the address where family friends said she was visited by outpatient mental health workers from Elmhurst hospital.

When she was arrested in 2003, she was staying in Ridgewood, Queens.

In an interview, Mr. Conlisk, now 65, said he had never seen her before the confrontation. He said she approached him from behind, screaming and accusing him of sleeping with her mother.

“She goes into a boxer’s stance, and then she punches my face,” he said. He pressed charges and had a restraining order against her for a year, he added, but never saw her again.

“I think I would have been dead if she had a weapon,”
he said.
 
Murder is murder.

The whole concept of "hate crime" is totally idiotic and in practice its even worse. You cant objectively decide what is "hate crime" and what is not.
Why not? Or, at least, why not any less so than any other crime?
 
We can never know peoples real motives. So she says she killed them because they looked certain way, she gets at least 20 years. She doesn't say why she killed them, she gets a 15 year minimum sentence.
And if she says she killed them in self defense, maybe she gets 0 years.
 
:lol:

That's a really cynical way of looking at it, but its honestly the truth.

On the other hand, this was done with a knife, so it also proves that idiots are the problem, not guns;)

I still think "Hate crime" is a stupid concept. She killed someone, so if the evidence is beyond doubt (Didn't she admit to it) she should be subjected to life for a life. That it was a "Hate crime" should not make this any more the case, nor should it be any less the case if she killed him for some other (Non-mitigating) reason.

Do you think terrorism as a legal charge is a stupid concept?
 
You are probably thinking of the incident earlier in the month.

Menendez has a history of mental problems and violence:


well, looks like we can scratch the rabid muslim/indian hater theory.
that woman was way too mental to be properly racist.
 
well, looks like we can scratch the rabid muslim/indian hater theory.
that woman was way too mental to be properly racist.

So the real truth of why you posted this story comes out. Yet the real story behind it is not what you wanted.
 
What???

You are projecting your own ugly character on others again, I think.
Trust in God to breed arrogant bigots, indeed.
 
well, looks like we can scratch the rabid muslim/indian hater theory.
that woman was way too mental to be properly racist.
I'm not sure why she couldn't be both. Racism and mental health seem to be inexorably intertwined.

Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness? Yes.

The American Psychiatric Association has never officially recognized extreme racism (as opposed to ordinary prejudice) as a mental health problem, although the issue was raised more than 30 years ago. After several racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have extreme bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that because so many Americans are racist, even extreme racism in this country is normative—a cultural problem rather than an indication of psychopathology.

The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index.1 Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.

To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.

Extreme racists' violence should be considered in the context of behavior described by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice.2 Allport's 5-point scale categorizes increasingly dangerous acts. It begins with verbal expression of antagonism, progresses to avoidance of members of disliked groups, then to active discrimination against them, to physical attack, and finally to extermination (lynchings, massacres, genocide). That fifth point on the scale, the acting out of extermination fantasies, is readily classifiable as delusional behavior.

More recently, Sullaway and Dunbar used a prejudice rating scale to assess and describe levels of prejudice.3 They found associations between highly prejudiced people and other indicators of psychopathology. The subtype at the extreme end of their scale is a paranoid/delusional prejudice disorder.

Using the DSM's structure of diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder,4(p329) I suggest the following subtype:

Prejudice type: A delusion whose theme is that a group of individuals, who share a defining characteristic, in one's environment have a particular and unusual significance. These delusions are usually of a negative or pejorative nature, but also may be grandiose in content. When these delusions are extreme, the person may act out by attempting to harm, and even murder, members of the despised group(s).

Extreme racist delusions can also occur as a major symptom in other psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Persons suffering delusions usually have serious social dysfunction that impairs their ability to work with others and maintain employment.

As a clinical psychiatrist, I have treated several patients who projected their own unacceptable behavior and fears onto ethnic minorities, scapegoating them for society's problems. Their strong racist feelings, which were tied to fixed belief systems impervious to reality checks, were symptoms of serious mental dysfunction. When these patients became more aware of their own problems, they grew less paranoid—and less prejudiced.

It is time for the American Psychiatric Association to designate extreme racism as a mental health problem by recognizing it as a delusional psychotic symptom. Persons afflicted with such psychopathology represent an immediate danger to themselves and others. Clinicians need guidelines for recognizing delusional racism in all its forms so that they can provide appropriate treatment. Otherwise, extreme delusional racists will continue to fall through the cracks of the mental health system, and we can expect more of them to explode and act out their deadly delusions.

Racism hurts kids' mental health

Fifth-graders who feel they've been mistreated because of their skin color are much more likely than classmates without such feelings to have symptoms of mental disorders, especially depression, a study suggests.

There is evidence that racial discrimination increases the odds that adolescents and adults will develop mental health problems, but this is the first study to examine a possible link in children of varied races, says Tumaini Coker, the study co-author and a RAND Corp. researcher and UCLA pediatrician.

It does not prove that discrimination caused the emotional problems, because unlike studies of older people, these children weren't followed over time. It's possible that prejudice harms children's mental health, but it is also possible that troubled kids prompt more discriminatory remarks from peers or that children with emotional problems perceive more bias, says study leader Mark Schuster, a Harvard pediatrician and pediatrics chief at Children's Hospital Boston.

The link between perceived racism and mental disorders is strong, he adds. For example, Hispanics who report racism are more than three times as likely as other children to have symptoms of depression; blacks are more than twice as likely; and those of "other" minority races have almost quadruple the odds. Rates are also higher for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder.racists
 
Interesting but that would end up rendering most everyone who existed before us as some manner of insane.
 
I don't think it does. Creed and ethnic origin are just justifications the killer makes for their crime, that's no different than them justifying it because "he was a bastard," "he owed me money," or "he was hitting on my girl." What matters is the circumstance. Did the killer take the victim's life in an offensive or defensive action? If it was offensive, and in a way against the law, then the crime is murder. If it was defensive, protecting one's life or the life of a loved one, then it is not. How each person rationalizes it makes no difference, and investigating whether the allegations made by the killer are true or not risks making their justification for murder sound reasonable.

Or in other words, whether the victim was Muslim or Hindu or not makes absolutely no difference, because whether they were or not, she thought they were, and so she killed them. So even if you were going to prosecute for this mysterious thing called a hate crime, shouldn't it be because of whom she thought she was killing, rather than who the person actually was?

Hate crime is a special category because - like terrorism and other crimes - it's more than one crime rolled into one.

If you were going to go next to someone and say "I'm going to kill you", that would be a crime - death threats.

Actively murdering someone simply because of who they are (eg, a muslim) is functionally equivalent to telling everyone of that group "I'm going to kill you", on top of actually comitting a murder.

Hence, in the same way that terrorism is a combination of several different crimes (blackmail, property destruction, plotting, etc) that add up together to one really bad one, hate crime represent a combination of murder (or other violent act) and threats.

And, of course, as Ace99 said, considering the intent of the crime is a fundamental basis of just about every criminal law system in world history; those who claim we shouldn't worry about things like that are completely disconnected from reality, and from centuries of legal practice. A crime requires both a culpable act and a culpable intent, actus reus and mens rea.
 
Interesting but that would end up rendering most everyone who existed before us as some manner of insane.
Note that this is extreme racism, not simple prejudice. I personally think wanting to kill someone, or certainly wanting to exterminate an entire group of people, based solely on the pigment of their skin or some other similar characteristic, isn't what I would call "normative".

Wouldn't it be ironic if extreme bigotry eventually become a mental disorder after homosexuality was once falsely considered to be so?

What if more people suffered from depression? Would that suddenly make it "normative" if it reached a high enough level?
 
Top Bottom