Political scientist finds 2/3 of hate crime claims are bogus

Post Reply New Topic

Hate Crime Hoaxes Are More Common Than You Think
A political scientist found that fewer than 1 in 3 of 346 such allegations was genuine.

... Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crime allegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. Turning his attention to the hoaxes, he put together a data set of more than 400 confirmed cases of fake allegations that were reported to authorities between 2010 and 2017. He allows that the exact number of false reports is probably unknowable, but what can be said “with absolute confidence is that the actual number of hate crime hoaxes is indisputably large,” he writes. “We are not speaking here of just a few bad apples.”

The author’s bigger concern, and rightly so, is the growing politicization of hate crimes, especially when they are directed at underrepresented groups and regardless of whether they in fact happened. The sad reality is that there is no shortage of individuals and entities with a vested interest in exaggerating racial tensions in the U.S.—from civil-rights organizations to corporate diversity officers to professors of race and gender studies.

These alleged incidents are invariably seized upon by politicians and activists looking to feed a sacrosanct belief among liberals that discrimination and oppression are the main drivers of inequality. “In the mainstream media we hear almost constant talk about scary new forms of racism: ‘white privilege,’ ‘cultural appropriation,’ and ‘subtle bigotry,’ ” Mr. Reilly writes, yet “a huge percentage of the horrific hate crimes cited as evidence of contemporary bigotry are fakes.”

If “Hate Crime Hoax” merely offered examples to illustrate the extent of this phenomenon— and the book offers nearly 100 —it would be providing a much-needed public service. But Mr. Reilly has a larger point to make. The Smollett case isn’t an outlier. Increasingly, it’s the norm. And the media’s relative lack of interest in exposing hoaxes that don’t involve famous figures is a big part of the problem.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hate-crime ... 1561503352

So we should pretend like hate crimes never happen?

This is the book mentioned:

Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War

https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Crime-Hoax- ... ref=sr_1_1

The opinion of ONE political scientist does not a consensus make.

However, it would not surprise me at all if further research validates his findings.

Not at all, TRoT. What should happen is that the "Burden of Proof" concept should be enforced on all claims that a hate crime has been committed -- the same goes for claims of harassment, emotional abuse, sexual assault and paternity. The burden of proving the a claim of criminal activity should rest solely on the person(s) making the claim, his or her lawyers, and/or the prosecuting attorneys. Such proof should be material in nature, and not merely an accusation of wrong-doing.

And all of this "Trial by Media" crap has also got to stop!

You've got a good point. People should concentrate on finding the actual truth to these accusations instead of using straw doll arguements.

That's the type of thinking that led to many people getting lynched without a fair trial in the old days. People let their emotions get in the way of finding the actual truth to what happened to each individual.

Accusations are not proof of guilt.

Being questioned is not proof of guilt.

Denials are not proof of guilt.

Suspicion of guilt is not proof of guilt.

And any personal quirks like twitching, smiling, frowning, or "showing no emotional response" when the charges are read are certainly not proof of guilt.

I definetly agree about the last part. It's like no matter how the accused person reacts to the accusation, they're evil and guilty no matter what. If he's crying then he's faking remourse, but if he shows no emotion then he must be a sociopath.

People are idiots and quick to judge, and the media takes full advanrage of that.

I wonder what percentage of said 2/3 are hoaxes perpetrated by people with a vested interest in being percieved as victims.

How does the 'political scientist' define bogus? Is it that they're bogus because people were lying? Or are they bogus because they don't fit his definition of what a hate crime is ?

From the way it's worded it sounds like more right-wing propaganda to me.

I agree with what Fnord was saying, but this has the MAGA agenda written all over it.

What does he consider a hate crime?

Anyway, this isn’t saying that the extreme reports we hear on the news aren’t true. People call the police frequently as a way to pass the time, get attention, and, at times, get revenge on someone.

It doesn’t mean that each and every allegation won’t be investigated, but if it’s a relatively petty crime (i.e. more of a dispute than anything else), we aren’t going to hear about it.

Presumably the former. "sir, you reported these guys assaulted you becausr you're black, but our investigation shows they did it because you owe them money. Nothing to see here." Yeah, dubious.

Quoting PPR rules:

This is a pretty textbook example of such a case; the OP has previously been warned for creating threads (and making many posts) suggesting that hate crimes are fake and continues to take an extremely one-sided approach to examining the issue of whether hate exists, suggesting an agenda rather than merely intellectual curiosity. The fact that he specifies hate crimes as a whole, rather than specifying e.g. racism or sexism, is at best a loophole.

Consequently, thread locked.