For those who think hate-crime laws are unnecessary, and/or bestow "special rights"

[Sapphocrat]

Bold emphasis mine:

Foes of Hate Crime Bill Prove It's Needed

...The proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday despite the accompanying White House veto threat, includes provisions that would make it possible for federal investigation and prosecution of any hate crime, as well as a more-publicized tenet that expands the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation, transgender identity, gender and disability. ...

<snip>

Most media and public attention is focused on the clause that offers greater protection for sexual minorities. But it shouldn’t even be news. ...

<snip>

According to FBI reports, 14 percent of 2005 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation, which is just slightly less than the percent of attacks based on religion and greater than the percent of attacks based on ethnicity, two groups that are currently protected under the law. Those in the sexual minority deserve the same protection as other minorities because they are just as abused and just as worthy of it. But not only is this protection not afforded them, but arguments against the proposed revisions to hate crime laws are based on prejudices that should be a mere memory in the year 2007. ...

<snip>

Second, while every American citizen has a Constitutional right to protection, those in minority groups are in a unique situation. Simply being who they are inspires people to commit violence against them. Additionally, if we were all to have the equal protection Rep. Smith suggests, we would have to eliminate all hate crime laws covering race, religion and national origin. Doing away with hate crime laws altogether would be an injustice, and members of both parties would likely oppose it. So these groups are and will continue to rightfully be protected, but the still-unaccepted sexual minorities are not.

Perhaps the weakest argument against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act is the one put forth by the religious right – that this act would take away their right to free speech and hold them accountable for speaking out against homosexuality. ... What’s important is the fact that the proposed act would in no way take away their right to free speech, as it covers only physical acts against these groups. Perhaps the religious right should also consider that they, under current hate crime laws, are protected against hate-related attacks, and reflect on what it might be like if that were to be taken away from them.

Much more:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/jv003.htm

Everybody understand now?

Simply put, the people who are currently protected are the ones enjoying "special" rights -- or, as I like to think of them: privileges.

But, hey, I'm willing to give up equal protection under the law if you are too.

Now, if you're against all hate-crime laws, then I'll give you credit for being consistent. If you're really being consistent.

I hope you realize that by railing against hate-crime laws, you're on quite a slippery slope. If you believe that there should be no protections in place for minorities against crimes committed on the sole basis of who we are, then be prepared to explain why we shouldn't eliminate all "special rights" laws, such as protection in housing and employment.

And don't give me any of that "thought crime" malarkey. If you really believe that there's no way to determine that a gay -- or black, or Muslim -- person was beaten or murdered on the basis of who they are, then how can there be any way to determine that the reason a person was fired, or evicted, for the same "thought crime"?

In which case, I expect everyone against hate-crime laws must want to see both the Fair Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. There's no way to justify support for either if you oppose the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act.

Heck, you may as well overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act. After all, don't all those wheelchair ramps and court sign-language interpreters represent "special" rights?

[Terri S]

1. Well said!!! K & R! n/t

[sniffa]

2. k&r from me

[Bjorn Against]

3. Well said...

I think the whole notion of hate crimes being "thought crimes" is ridiculous, you can think whatever you want to think in this country and you won't get arrested for it. It is only when you act out on those thoughts that you may be committing a crime, but the crime is the action not the thought. Those who consider hate crimes to be thought crimes must also think that premeditated murder is no more severe than an accidental killing, so by their logic we should consider first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter to be on a equal level. After all premeditation involves thought does it not? So why have I never heard hate crimes opponents call for an end to laws making premeditated murder more serious than involuntary manslaughter?

[Sapphocrat]

4. Excellent point.

After all premeditation involves thought does it not? So why have I never heard hate crimes opponents call for an end to laws making premeditated murder more serious than involuntary manslaughter?

Well put!

[undergroundpanther]

5. Hate crimes against transgender

Is over the top even for america.

Savage is an asshole of epic proportions,A hate crime in of himself,and if he said this SHIT around me, he'd be missing a few teeth if he was lucky. For too long has HATE twords gay and transpeople been excused in the name of religion.Couldn't it be the way bullies because of thier bad hearts and the way these loudmouths interpret the religion be the problem? Thier personality is coloring how they see everything in the world and the unknown? Michael savage has an ugly depraved psychopathic heart himself.Here is a hatequote from the vile rightwing pig.


SAVAGE: "San Francisco police are trying to determine whether the slaying of a transgender victim found naked near the Interstate 280 freeway is somehow linked to reports of a nude woman seen walking on the same freeway two hours later, authorities said. ... Lynch said it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman." Yeah, process of becoming a woman -- psychopath, should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication.

...And what's this sympathy, constant sympathy for sexually confused people? Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society? I didn't say hurt the freaks. I didn't say do anything to the freaks.

But you know what? You're never gonna make me respect the freak. I don't want to respect the freak. The freak ought to be glad that they're allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I'm sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.

Trandgender rememberance read it an weep.
http://www.gender.org/remember/day /
http://criticalmoment.org/issue14/tdor

My name is Donathyn Rodgers, I was 19
years old and I identified as a male to female
transsexual. I was a sex worker in Cleveland,
Ohio. In the early morning hours of November
15th, 2005, two men approached me and
one of them shot me in the head. I ran but
they shot me six more times.


I was Ronnie Paris, and I was
only three-years-old. I lived in
Tampa, Florida. My father did not
want to raise a sissy and didnt see
me as being very masculine. He
slapped my head numerous times
until I went into a coma. I died
on January 28th, from swelling on
both sides of my brain.

Amputate the bully from the right wing Because the rightwing it's got gaseous gangerene of the soul and it's heart stinks.like death..

[LostinVA]

6. K&R!

Good post, Sapph!

[Duncan Grant]

7. Bookmarking for the next time the "thought police"/"special rights" crowd shows up.

My, oh my. It's so quiet in here you could hear a pin drop.

Imagine that.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Very cool post

And a necessary one. People seem to underestimate the numbers of hate crimes as well as the damage it inflicts on not only the victims, but the human condition.

I was up on Capital hill in Seattle, an area that has a large GBLT community. There were some young men driving around yelling "Fag" out the window. I had to recheck the year. Yes, it's still 2007 and hate is thriving.

[WinkyDink]

9. Here's a different "slippery slope" (BTW, not a good logical tack, but I digress):

that ALL prosecutors of ALL crimes will need to show motive.

Currently, this is not required.

[Sapphocrat]

12. That's OK by me.

Just think: If Vincent Bugliosi hadn't shown motive for the Tate-LaBianca murders (and he didn't have to), Atkins, Watson, et al., would still be in prison, but Charlie Manson would be walking around free.

[WinkyDink]

31. True enough!

[kiahzero]

17. Actually, criminal intent is part of just about every crime.

With the exception of anomalies like statutory rape, all crimes have "mens rea" elements - criminal intent.

[WinkyDink]

32. "Motive" doesn't = "intent". My INTENT might be to murder; you might never know WHY.

"Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing.

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant's motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html

[kiahzero]

50. Forgive me... I thought you were playing fast and loose with the language

Yes, motive is different from intent. I thought you were saying that prosecutors would have to prove a mental state of the accused for all crimes, but you weren't.

With that said, I'm not seeing how motive could become part of all crimes.

[Sadie4629]

10. One thing I don't understand

How do hate crime laws "protect" anyone? In the James Byrd case, two racists dragged a Black man to death. Now, they surely knew that Texas has the death penalty, and if that didn't deter them, how would ANY added penalties related to hate crime legislation?

[JackBeck]

13. It would elevate it to a Federal crime.

[Sadie4629]

15. But seriously, what would that do?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Do you suppose there's ever been a case...

of a black man who got murdered, and his killers weren't brought to justice like Byrd's killers were?

[Sadie4629]

22. Of course. And in the not-too-distant past.

So, hate crime legislation would take the jurisdiction out of the local area so that a change of venue to a much more fair area would occur. Am I right?

[JackBeck]

24. Christopher Anders, of the ACLU"

"This carefully crafted measure shows that you can prosecute hate crimes without attacking freedom of expression," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.

"Federal legislation addressing hate crimes is necessary because state and local law enforcement officers sometimes do not act because of either inadequate resources or their own bias against the victim," Anders added. "Congress should adopt this measure to place gender, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation in the same protected class as race, religion and national origin."

--------------------------------

Speaking from a personal experience, when I was attacked, some of the cops were great, but the detective asked me biased questions, basically blaming me for getting attacked.

[Sapphocrat]

30. IOW, you "asked for it."

And sometimes, bias against the victim is a killer.

Are you familiar with the story of Tyra Hunter? Small wonder crimes against transgendered persons are even more underreported (or misclassified as suicides, etc.) than assaults on LGB's:

Transgender woman Tyra Hunter died on 7 Aug 95 at D.C. General Hospital after having been in an auto accident. On Friday 11 Dec 98, a D.C. jury awarded $2.8 million in damages to Tyra's mother who had brought a wrongful death & survival action against the District of Columbia, the supervising Emergency Room physician, and an Emergency Medical Technician. Local transgender attorney Dana Priesing attended each session of the trial. This is her summary and analysis of the evidence underlying the verdict.

"Tyra was knocked out by the crash, but by the time the firemen arrived, she was conscious but dazed, and developing airway trouble from teeth knocked into her mouth. Tyra looked female at first glance, but in their initial injury assessment, a fireman discovered Ty's male genitals, uttered the epithets ("This ain't no b----. It's a n-----. He's got a dick and balls."), and ceased treating her. They failed to clear her airway for some period of time while they laughed at her as the crowd yelled at them to get to work. Other emergency personnel on scene approached some time later, after treating the other injured passenger. They found Tyra still lying on the grass, gagging and combative, apparently trying to escape the taunting firemen. Supervisor Roulhac then arrived and ordered Ty's airway cleared.

"Tyra reached the ER at 4:10 p.m. She was received as a combative transgendered "John Doe" with breasts and male genitalia, makeup and female clothes. Mysteriously, she was given Narcan, which plaintiff's expert witness Dr. Baker termed a counter- narcotic. With an elevated pulse and below normal blood pressure, it was obvious that she was in hypovolemic shock (HVS). The blood was not coming from her head or limbs. ER personnel X-rayed her chest 20 minutes after she arrived. Those X-rays have disappeared.

<snip>

"Tyra's pulse and blood pressure slowly fell, and she suffocated from lack of oxygen in her blood. Dr. Baker testified that the sensation would have been "sheer terror." A muscle relaxant paralyzed her, and an amnesia drug would have prevented her remembering (had she survived), but it wouldn't have prevented her from experiencing that terror, as she lay there for over half an hour without treatment. She died at 5:20 p.m. Only then did the ER staff insert a chest tube, releasing at least 1500 ccs of blood, as well as air, that had built up in her chest. They administered CPR (badly enough to mash her spleen), then opened her chest and performed heart massage. ...

<snip>

More:
http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/notitle.html?cmd=view&...

You know, it's really no different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives, or Muslim supermarket employees who refuse to handle pork products, is it? Well, there's one difference: So far, the pharmacists and the supermarket employees haven't killed anybody. Yet.

[Sapphocrat]

Is any law really a deterrent?

It may not deter other would-be criminals, but it certainly prevents the convicted criminal from doing it a second time. That is indeed protection.

Of course, I expect to be jumped on for assuming that a gay- or race-basher will do it a second time. However, we're not talking un-meditated "crimes of passion" here (idiotic "gay panic defense" aside). People who would beat or kill a person simply for who they are, are unlikely to be single-offense bashers/killers. You wouldn't believe the number of convicted gay-killers who were witnessed as having said, "Let's go find some fags to beat up" before doing just that. Some would say that's nothing more than simple premeditation. I say it is the sign of a deep, unabiding disease -- and one of the few "diseases" for which I recommend lengthy "quarantine."

Too, hate-crime laws have (in theory) a leveling effect on judges and juries. What most hate-crime-law opponents miss (often deliberately) is that too many killers have actually received lighter sentences after murdering LGBTs (especially transgendered victims), often because a judge (or jury) wanted to avoid being accused of levying a penalty based on a "thought crime." (Yes, I can provide links, but if you want them, you'll have to give me a while to find them again.)

Finally, there is still the pervasive thought that if a gay person is murdered, s/he was "asking for it." (Similarly, look at Emmett Till, who, as a black teenager, "asked for it" by whistling at a white woman.) People need to learn that no one deserves to be murdered -- any more than a person deserves to get AIDS, or be raped, because they were "asking for it."

The bottom line is: Would the victim have been beaten or murdered if s/he hadn't been gay/black/etc.? If the answer is no, then the crime is particularly heinous -- it is an assault on all gay/black/etc. people, and that magnifies the crime. To refuse to recognize that is to silently condone societal homophobia/racism/etc.

Or, look at it this way: To hurt someone because of who he or she is is to send a message to the rest of the community/culture to which that person belongs. And that's just another description of terrorism.


On edit: typo

[Chulanowa]

66. From my understanding,

Hate crime laws are geared more towards added penalties to crimes that don't warrant the death penalty. If you kill a man and drag him down a dirt road, you're going to be on death row / life imprisonment, whether you did it because of race, orientation, or because he owed you money.

On the other hand, if you paint a swastika on a synagogue door with pig's blood, this is a different crime than tagging the place with spray paint. The first is clearly an action meant to inspire fear that targets an entire segment of the population, while hte second is just vandalism.

[Sapphocrat]

67. That's it, Chulanowa.

"The first is clearly an action meant to inspire fear that targets an entire segment of the population, while hte second is just vandalism."

You got it.

[iverglas]

88. in a nutshell

All I would add is that while the deterrent value of sentencing may be questionable in many cases (the death penalty and homicide being the obvious one), there are some in which it may be of more value.

A hate crime is usually more carefully planned than a common or garden crime. Going looking for a victim is different from getting into a bar brawl; setting out to trash a religious organization's building is different from throwing a beer bottle through a store window on the way home from the bar brawl.

It is crimes like that, that are less impulsive and more calculated, that are often more amenable to deterrence. And that's one reason to increase sentences for hate crimes: it might actually work.

[Chulanowa]

95. Exactly what I was thinking

And further, attacking a person because of their race is intrinsically different than attacking someone who slept with your spouse or something. if you attack someone because of their "group", it's utterly impersonal - you would attack any member of said group, if they happened to be there instead of the one you did attack.

[JackBeck]

11. Great post!

There were many posters around here the past few days that were touting the "get rid of all hate crimes" meme. I wonder if they actually knew what they were getting themselves into.

Funny how those already with a place at the table fight so hard to keep others from joining them. I chalk it up to them being completely unaware that they have these extra, special rights.

Or maybe they're just selfish and simply do not want to share.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. K&R'd. I'm often out of lockstep with my DU brothers and sisters

on affirmitive action and other civil rights legislation, but hate crime laws (and most other minority protections) are utterly necessary, and do not amount to thought crime in the slightest.

After all, the difference between murder one, murder two, and manslaughter is nothing more than state of mind. The "thought crime" argument is utterly bogus.

[nini]

16. There are people HERE who believe hate crime bills are unnecessary?

what kind of moran would think hate crimes are not real and deserve a special kind of smackdown?

[JackBeck]

19. Yes, even here.

It's been rather frustrating around here ever since the House passed the Hate Crimes legislation.

[nini]

20. I think I'm glad I've missed those threads

[Robson]

21. Sadly I wish I could agree...but more importantly.....

.....I wish some were as persistent and dilligent and conscientious about equal rights for ALL as they are about special rights for their own little sub group/community. America should be one for all .... all for one.

[JackBeck]

23. That's exactly what this legislation would do.

Give equal rights to all.

How would this be giving "special rights" to the LGBT community?

Federal hate crime laws have existed in the United States since 1969, permitting federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.

This legislation would be adding the LGBT community, the elderly, disabled and military personnel to laws that already exist.

What's your issue with that?

[Sapphocrat]

26. You prove my point, in spades.

So you must believe that protecting anyone from discrimination based on race, creed, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, and/or disability is nothing but pandering to "special rights for their own little sub group/community."

By the way, do you even see your contradiction here?: "America should be one for all .... all for one."

[Robson]

28. Everyone has self interests

Human nature whether one is rich or poor, left or right, gay or straight ..... is that people have self interests and they always put them first. Many say it but few are truly objective and favor the greater good of society. Most will attempt to get a leg up on the rest of society.

[Sapphocrat]

33. And many...

...will attempt to hold the rest of us down in order to preserve their privileged place at the table.

[FreeState]

29. Everyone has a sexual orientation

Everyone has a sexual orientation - I may be missing something but this makes crimes based on ones real or perceived sexual orientation a federal crime. Now how in the world is sexual orientation a "special rights for their own little sub group/community"?

[Sapphocrat]

34. That's my question, too.

The thing that would make me laugh, if it weren't so tragic, is that opponents just can't comprehend the fact that this protects the majority as well (oh, the stories I've heard, of straight people who have been beaten to death for coming to the aid of a gay or transgendered person!) -- just as they seem incapable of understanding that that little business about "race" includes them, too.

Well, FS, if you ever get the answer to that question, let me know. I'm still waiting for an answer from the RWers as to how marriage equality hurts society, too -- and I have a feeling I'll be hearing the same old crickets in response to your question.

[Robson]

38. We're already protected

OK folks, let's try and be less self promoting and more understanding and empathetic of others. Yes it is difficult and requires an open mind, but try.

All of us are already protected by the force of law against crimes of violence, etc. against us.

Apparently what some prefer is more protection for themselves, their friends, their community, their group than what others who are not included in this demographic may have.

Human nature being what it is, permits you to believe your demographic segment deserves special attention but fairness doesn't justify it.

[Sapphocrat]

40. Spoken...

...like a true member of the privileged majority.

You really crack me up, kiddo. First, you don't see the irony in your own blindingly contradictory "all for one" speech, and now you're preaching "empathy," when you have none for your fellow citizens?!

But, please, don't let me stop you. By all means, keep posting. You're proving my point with each and every reply, for which I thank you most sincerely!

[Jamastiene]

43. What is it that you think is so special about other people?

The rest of us would like some protection under the law too, you know. If it was left to local jurisdictions to decide, I can guarantee no one would get prosecuted when gay people get attacked in the county where I live. Are you going to come down here and be sure that the current laws are enforced with equality for all, including gay people? If so, how many little rural towns across America can you be in at once? That is what you would have to do to see that the current laws are enforced equally. It's not happening as it is now. That is why Federal Hate Crimes laws are so necessary. It certain people didn't have such a special type of hatred toward "special people," we wouldn't have to ask for equal protection under the law. As it stands now, certain people are saying that we are asking for special protection but not acknowledging the special brand of hatred that is directed at us. That's where the inequality is.

[Sapphocrat]

45. ...

[Jamastiene]

36. You know what?

If those "special rights" were not already bestowed to straight people/white people/etc., hate crimes legislation would be a shoo in. The best way to understand it would be to put the shoe on the other foot and imagine what it would be like if your standing in society was the polar opposite of what it is now. Federal Hate Crimes legislation would even the playing field. Only then could it be all for one and one for all.

[dave123williams]

25. Nobody here is probably old enough to remember this, but...

Not granting "special rights" was the exact way people who opposed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of '64 put it.

To them, giving 'coloreds' the vote was a 'special right' to which they were not entitled.

These people don't seem to get what 'equal protection under the law' means.

Ironically, it was exactly that principle (equal protection) that former Solicitor General Ted Olson successfully used to argue before the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore, and totally fuck this country for eight years.

[Sapphocrat]

27. I'm almost old enough. ;)

At least, old enough to remember gawking at the sight of the firehoses on the evening news, and asking my parents why they were doing that to "the Negroes" -- followed by: "They're just like us, aren't they?"

Yes, the same tired old arguments have been dusted out and are on parade again. And the sad thing is, indeed, that many of those too young to remember the era (or too lazy to crack open a history book) think this is something new under the sun.

[MadHound]

35. I'm on the fence about hate crime legislation

Mainly for the fact that many, if not the majority of violent crimes in this country are committed by one person hating another. X kills Y because he is gay. A kills B because he slept around with another woman. E kills F because he didn't like F's politics. Yes, there is hatred in the hearts of those who perform violent crimes against minorities, but there is also hatred in the heart of those who committ crimes against non-minorities. And then again, how does one determine this? Sure, it's obvious that the people who beat and killed Matthew Shepard hated gays. But then there are crimes committed against gays that aren't motivated by such bias. Who makes that determination, and how do they do so?

I can see the point of having such legislation, but I can also see the drawbacks to this. For, despite your protestation, this is walking on that fine line of thought crime, and could send us toppling over right into it.

Like I said, I'm on the fence.

[Sapphocrat]

39. Nobody's saying...

...that every assault on a gay person will automatically be deemed an anti-gay hate crime. Sometimes people just kill people, and orientation has nothing to do with it. I recognize that, and I would never want to see our glorious, if often flawed, justice system turn into a black-and-white proposition.

The very structure of our justice system is the reason we can debate such issues at all: We have at our disposal such things as "degree" (was it first degree murder? involuntary manslaughter?), and "extenuating circumstances" -- all of which serve to protect the accused, before the accuser.

Which is as it should be. God forbid it should be any other way.

Certainly, there are drawbacks to assessing motive -- just as there are drawbacks to assessing degree of guilt. In answer to your question, "Who makes that determination, and how do they do so?" the answer is: the same people who determine degree of guilt, in the same way we do now.

But my original point remains: If you believe you cannot prove anti-gay bias in a physical assault, then you must believe you cannot prove anti-anything bias in housing or employment (or, come to think of it, voting).

Btw... A killing B doesn't strike me as a hate crime, but a "crime of passion." E killing F, however, sounds like a hate crime.

Do you remember the story of Alan Berg? Is there any question his murder was a hate crime, based on E not liking F's politics? (I also find it perfectly appropriate that his killers were also convicted of violating Berg's civil rights. That's what this is all about.)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. As Long As Special Hate Crime Terms Exist, Then This Should Pass Too. But I'm Not Sure They Should

exist at all, regardless of which type of hate crime is involved.

I've always been on the fence about that. Part of me condones it conceptually, but when I think about it in a straightforward logical manner I can never get over the simple point that no equal act of violence is worse than another regardless of what the initial catalyst was. In fact, sometimes I wonder if declaring some intents as more worthy of punishment doesn't hurt some causes.

For example, why would someone attacking a man based on sexual orientation only, with no relation or even acquaintance of the individual involved, be any worse than an abusive husband who beats his wife to death? If you break it down, it's almost like saying "well the former was worse because the gay guy did nothing and was just specifically targeted for simply being gay". But is that really worse? Isn't that adversely then almost saying that the attack on the wife isn't as bad because she contributed somehow, such as by nagging the guy or not doing things the way he liked blah blah blah? I don't think that's fair to the woman in that case. I don't care how much she nagged or pissed him off, the crime is still deplorable. I don't find it less so based on the fact that they knew each other and therefore the guy had more excuses he could use as to why he did it. I think it actually undermines the victim and the atrocity of the act perpetrated on them, if they weren't within a 'hate crime' class.

So based on that sort of example, I've never fully been able to confidently support the hate crime legislation concept as a whole. Just seems to me that the catalyst for the crime isn't even close to being as important as the brutality of the crime itself.

[Malikshah]

41. The key is "conceptually"-- it is not conceptual to the victims

at all.

The intent issue exacerbates the brutality to the victims.

Let the victims of hate crimes respond and see how much they talk about having issues with it conceptually.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Obviously, I Disagree But At Least I Gave Logical Reasons As To Why.

Your argument simply came down to nothing more than 'it's more brutal because it is'. I disagree with that concept completely though. I think a wife getting beaten to death is every single bit as brutal and tragic as a stranger who happened to share the same fate based on sexual orientation. To each their own though.

[Malikshah]

51. Being singled out because of one's being is different.

That was not my logic, btw.

I was trying to point out the difference of thinking about this issue conceptually-- in the abstract as opposed to someone who will go through it in reality. The brutality of the act coupled with the fact that the victim is singled out because of who they choose to love or the color of their skin or their religion...the victim doesn't think about conceptually while they die.

BTW-- the word to think about is empathy. It's more than a concept.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Not Sure The Premise Holds Water.

But rather than type the same thing but different, see below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Malikshah]

80. From what I read in the responses to the link given, I think I have the votes

for my premise holding quite a bit of water.

[Sapphocrat]

44. I do see the difference...

...but (and you knew there'd be a "but" in this), here's the thing: An abusive husband beating his wife to death is deplorable indeed -- but not, in my mind, a hate crime. He hates one person, not (necessarily) a group of people.

OTOH, if said husband then goes out on a mass killing spree, targeting women solely because he now hates all women, then that's a hate crime.

Yep, I'm thinking of Marc Lepine, who, while not the amalgam of the "abusive husband," slaughtered 14 people (and wounded 14 more) because he hated women, specifically feminists. (Never mind whether or not his victims were actually feminists or not.)

The other thing, OMC, is this: Hate-crime legislation isn't just some special thing for queers and non-whites. I don't know about you, but if there were an endemic wave of crime specifically targeting heterosexual, white, Christian males, I'd be just as much in favor of legislation that recognized and attempted to curb it.

It's really about targeting a specific group (via actual or perceived membership in that group). And again I say: That's terrorism.

And yes, I'll play the "9/11 card": Nobody (AFAIK) in the WTC was targeted specifically for being anti-Muslim -- but all the 9/11 victims died for perceived membership in the perceived anti-Muslim U.S. of A.

As for "the brutality of the crime itself," one of the most common features of bias-based murders is overkill. Overkill doesn't prove bias, but there's no denying that hatred -- be it against a cheating wife, or against one lone "representative" of a minority group -- must be taken into consideration when assessing motive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Though I Appreciate Your Reply, It Seems You Misunderstood My Point.

I'm aware that those things you mention wouldn't fall under a technical category of a hate crime; but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't stating that everything is a hate crime. My point was stating that whether technically a hate crime or not, it is the brutality of the act itself that should be assessed for punishment rather than the motive. You state that a component of hate crimes is 'overkill'. I don't disagree with that. I also have no problem punishing the perp more severely for that overkill. But I think that increase in punishment severity should apply regardless of whether it had been a hate crime or not, if the overkill was equal.

You also said you'd be in favor of law if white christian males were targeted. I believe christianity is already under the umbrella of hate crime legislation. But putting that aside, I still disagree with your assertion. Even if white heterosexual christian males were targeted as a group, I'd still not be able to fully convince myself that a crime committed against one of a certain measure of brutality should be more punishable than the same crime of equal brutality committed against somebody else.

Like I said originally, though I can somewhat understand the need for the legislation, I've never been able to fully convince myself of its fairness, premise or legitimacy. I toggle back and forth mentally between for and against. The biggest hurdle for me is what I've already stated. If a homeless man gets brutally beaten to death, that isn't any worse in my eyes than a gay male who suffered the same. If a hooker is brutally murdered, that isn't any worse in my eyes than a minority who suffered the same.

The fact is that much of the premise you put forth in the OP is blatantly wrong and misguided. You stated several issues that would need to be repealed if one were to take an anti-hate crime stance based on equality. But the premise was dead wrong logically. When it comes to violent crime and brutality we ARE all equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. When you talk about other issues those all are not equal. Women or minorities may in fact face tougher times landing the same job as a white male. They may have tougher times getting compensated equally. There may well be racial bias. All parties do not have the same opportunity nor the same playing field. But when it comes to being a victim of violence, abuse, atrocity or brutality, we absolutely are all equal. Relatively speaking, we all bleed the same. We all feel pain the same. We all fear the same. Our loved ones all feel pain from the loss the same. We all dream the same. We all hope the same. All those things are affected equally upon being a victim of such a crime.

A man who beats the shit out of a white heterosexual male with a pipe until he lays motionless and bloodied should receive the same penalty as a man who beats the shit out of a black homosexual male with a pipe until he lays motionless and bloodied. I don't care if one's motive was because he hit on the wrong girl at the bar and the other's was merely because he was a minority and or homosexual.

So all in all, you really misframed my point. My point doesn't revolve around a classification of hate crime vs non hate crime. It solely has to do with the brutality of the act itself and having different classes of punishment based on those findings, regardless of what kind of 'class' the victim was in.

If you'd like to try again, I wouldn't mind hearing from you why you think the pain, suffering or loss to the person within a hate crime 'class' is more severe than someone who was victim of an identical crime/abuse who was not technically within a hate crime class.

[JackBeck]

60. We are not equal.

"When it comes to violent crime and brutality we ARE all equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc."

Under Federal laws, we are not protected equally, which is why this legislation is so necessary.


"A man who beats the shit out of a white heterosexual male with a pipe until he lays motionless and bloodied should receive the same penalty as a man who beats the shit out of a black homosexual male with a pipe until he lays motionless and bloodied. I don't care if one's motive was because he hit on the wrong girl at the bar and the other's was merely because he was a minority and or homosexual.

So all in all, you really misframed my point. My point doesn't revolve around a classification of hate crime vs non hate crime. It solely has to do with the brutality of the act itself and having different classes of punishment based on those findings, regardless of what kind of 'class' the victim was in."

Are you insane? Hate Crimes laws have been around since 1969 and for a reason. There's an inherent intent to intimidate an entire community by making and example out of the one who is beaten. It's not about a single person committing an act of violence against another individual. The intention is to silence and suppress a minority community.

[Sapphocrat]

63. Mind reader. :) ^5 n/t

[JackBeck]

64. Same page, as always. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

61. And I appreciate your most well-thought-out reply, too.

I do recognize that in death, we are all equal. Dead is dead is dead.

It's not a matter of "trying again" so much as it is a matter of perspective. While I'm still very much alive, I have been targeted solely for being gay, and it's nothing short of a miracle I got away without so much as a scratch. OMC, I wish I could put a "gay suit" on you, and send you into your world, and then ask you if you felt queers were held to a different standard than everyone else.

As to why I "think the pain, suffering or loss to the person within a hate crime 'class' is more severe than someone who was victim of an identical crime/abuse who was not technically within a hate crime class": I keep saying it, but nobody's hearing me: It's not a crime against one person, but against a group. It's a mass crime, designed to inflict terror among a wider group.

And I do care "if one's motive was because he hit on the wrong girl at the bar and the other's was merely because he was a minority and or homosexual." What kind of fucked-up mindset is it that a person feels justified in killing another human being over a perceived slur to one's manhood?

And, OMC, I know my premise was not at all "dead wrong logically." It is so perfectly logical, the problem is that it may be too perfect.

We can always agree to disagree, you know. And in this case, I think we'll have to.

[TheMadMonk]

83. It's not making the punishment harsher, but ensuring that it's JUST.

The hateful should not get a walk or lesser sentence just because the victim is a dumb nigger, screaming fag, filthy pervert, damaged goods, filthy slut, or whatever other persona non grata who might be given short shrift on the local level.

It's about leveling the playing field and ensuring the victim of a "hate crime" get a FAIR and JUST hearing in an unbiased forum.

That said: Certain types of hate crime don't select A (single) victim for their "membership", but the despised population as a whole as the victim in that case it should be treated as a mass/serial crime and attract a harsher penalty than a similar crime randomly targeted.

[iverglas]

89. Lépine's murder victims were all women students

And he had plans prepared for killing other more prominent identifiably feminist women.

I do look forward to a day when the man who abducted and assaulted and planned to kill me would be prosecuted for a hate crime. He sure wasn't looking for a man to abduct and assault and kill; I had a man with me when he picked us up hitchhiking, it was just that he couldn't tell the boys from the girls, and my companion wasn't going as far as I was.

On a tangent, you might be interested in this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/04/virginia...

Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting About Virginia Tech
By James Ridgeway
Evidence shows that many mass murderers begin and end their rampages with violence against women. With over 30 dead in Virginia, can we finally begin to take the issue seriously?

[JackDragna]

46. I'm against hate crime laws.

..not because they're unecessary or bestow special rights, but because they punish people for the motivation behind a crime. One person should not be punished more for the same crime regardless of any political, religious or personal motivations. We are essentially legislating what is proper for people to believe. In my mind, there is a difference between equal protection under the law, such as with jobs, housing and the like, and laws designed to deter people from committing crimes, or punishing them additionally, based on their personal beliefs. There is a difference between discrimination as a policy in the public sphere and the idea that additional punishment is warranted for those who are motivated to commit crimes against others based on some personal characteristic.

[Sapphocrat]

47. That's the "thought crime" argument.

The day all crimes become equal under the law is the day I might be persuaded to rethink the "thought crimes" argument.

OK, so, Jack, let me ask you this open-ended question: How do you feel about slaughtering 11 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables"?

No, I'm not pulling the Nazi card so much as I am asking: What's the difference?

[JackDragna]

49. I'm against genocide, of course.

...and the fact that the justice system doesn't always treat all crimes equally means we should pass legislation to make some crimes worse than others. To the extent that we punish some people more than others for the same offense, hate crime legislation creates thought crimes. I don't necessarily hold the Nazi extermination of other people to be any more or less evil than an invading army (Mongols, for instance) that indiscrimantly kills everybody who happens to be in their path.

[Jamastiene]

53. The fact still remains that the Nazis

in America, aka Neo-Nazis have every right to believe their race is superior. So there goes the "beliefs" argument, out the window. They can believe what they want and even have little get togethers on courthouse steps to spew anti-Semitic slurs if they want to. That's protected by law too. Hate Crimes laws kick in when they start acting on those wishes to create a master race and start killing people who are not like them and other such nonsense. If strong laws against that sort of violence based on hate were not on the books, we would have a full fledged outbreak of violence here in America with the hate groups all stoked up like they are. What's the harm in protecting people with targets on their backs? What skin is it off anyone else's nose if they are already protected? I still don't get the aversion to equal protection under the law for all.

[JackDragna]

54. I doubt we'd have an "outbreak" of violence.

The Neo-Nazi movement has been in decline for decades. Those of that persuasion aren't going to be persuaded to commit less crime due to tougher laws any more than ramping up the penalties for drug trafficking and possession has reduced the drug problem. The problem with protecting people with these laws is that it's not going to adequately protect them, certainly not enough to justify punishing people for their motivations for crime. The point is not that people who are anti hate-crime law think people cannot have their "beliefs": the point is there's something disturbing about giving someone additional punishment because their motivations for breaking the law fell outside societal norms for acceptable behavior.

[Jamastiene]

56. Actually, the neo-nazi and other hate groups are on the rise

and have been for decades. There has been a lot on news about that.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hate+groups+on+the+ris...


They are on the rise, not in decline and yes, they would attack more frequently if not for hate crimes laws. Why do you think they complain about hate crimes laws so much if the hate crimes laws are not working?

[JackDragna]

58. That's a complex question.

The Neo-Nazis complain about hate crime legislation because, in their mind, it does create "special rights" and make a privileged class out of people they dislike.

[Jamastiene]

59. They complain about hate crimes legislation because

they know there is a chance the federal government will prosecute them when local jurisdictions will not. They know it keeps them from being able to get by with hate crimes as easily as they would without hate crimes laws.

[JackBeck]

62. Hate Crimes laws were passed in 1969.

I'm curious to see if your passion for this cause would be used more effectively to overturn these already existing laws, than fighting second-class citizens fighting to be added to them.

[JackDragna]

78. I have no passion for the laws, period.

They're not the worst thing in the world, but they're not great, either. I would support their repeal, but to me it's not the most pressing political issue of the day.

[iverglas]

91. y'know, I would almost imagine

that the people about whose well-being you give so little of a damn would prefer it if you exhibited at least a little passionate attachment to your indifference ...

[Sapphocrat]

55. OK, I understand...

...but this is where we part ways:

I do see today's attacks as genocide -- or "homo-cide": To me there is no difference between "Let's exterminate the Jews -- the state told me to" and "Let'e exterminate the homosexuals -- my pastor told me the Bible says God says to."

Invading armies: Same thing, only somehow we convince ourselves that war is a more "noble" cause.

As for "some crimes (being) worse than others": Aren't there any crimes worse than any others? For instance, rape is rape is rape. But is rape still just rape if the victim is a child?

I know, Jack, I'm pulling out all the stops on you -- but, having paid attention attention to your posts, I know you can more than handle it. So hit me.

[JackDragna]

57. No crime is worse than others..

..insofar as we take into account the perpetrator's political, ethical or religious motivations. I've read your other posts on this matter, and I agree our society does not do enough to effectively prosecute cases where someone is hurt because of some personal characteristic, like their race or sexual orientation.

As for the rape question, I don't think it should be an additional penalty to rape a child as compared to an adult. It's not that I think children aren't as worthy of protection as an adult: I think to force a sex act on an adult is just as offensive. Adults are just as worthy of any protection we give children against violence and harm.

[Sapphocrat]

65. What concerns me...

...is the idea -- and correct me if I'm wrong in understanding you on this -- that assaults on children and assaults on adults are of equal gravity.

I'm not trying to trap you here -- this is just a new concept to me. I'm surprised (OK, shocked) that you might be proposing that children are as responsible for what happens to them as are presumably sane, "competent," able-bodied adults who might have some say in the matter.

Help me out here, because this is striking me as veering way too close to blaming the victim.

[JackDragna]

77. How is this "blaming the victim?"

Once a rape has happened, it's immaterial as to whether anyone had any "say" in the matter. I fail to see how it follows from my argument that I am blaming the victim here. Please do not put words in my mouth.

And yes, I am stating attacks on adults and children are indeed of equal gravity. It is not less morally reprehensible to rape an adult that it is a child.

[gollygee]

85. I think it's pretty clear that it would be worse to rape my 5-year-old daughter

than it would be to rape me. Not that I would want either to happen, but I'd be better equipped to deal with the emotional aftermath, and it would have less of a physical toll on me.

I'm pretty shocked that you think raping a child isn't worse than raping an adult. They're both terrible crimes obviously, but raping a defenseless child who couldn't understand how or what or why . . .

[iverglas]

90. I think you're not quite understanding "motivation"

No crime is worse than others..
..insofar as we take into account the perpetrator's political, ethical or religious motivations.

The thing being taken into account isn't the offender's own views or beliefs or opinions, or views or beliefs or opinions about the victim.

What is being taken into account is both the intended and the actual effect of the offence: not just to hurt an individual, but to intimidate a group of people. (And that includes society at large; a climate of violence against minority groups is hardly conducive to general feelings of security.)

While people who beat up gay men or trash religious organizations' buildings don't generally hold annual general meetings to plan the nation-wide strategy for the coming year, they are pretty much all operating out of the shared motivation: to exercise control, exert power and demonstrate superiority, and teach lessons they want to be learned.

Why else would someone get up from the bar one evening and go looking for a gay man to beat up or a synagogue to vandalize??

These are not usually impulsive acts. They do commonly share some sort of group dynamic, with each member of the group feeding off / being pulled in by the others. But they are not impulsive; they are calculated.

They are quite simply entirely different from random acts of violence or vandalism, for instance -- robbing the first vulnerable person one happens upon on the street, or throwing rocks at the shiniest windows one sees.

And they are different from acts against acquaintances or family members, no matter how calculated, because the effects of the acts are never intended to be anything but direct and personal in those cases, and are generally limited to that locus.

There are many distinctions between hate crimes and crimes that may consist of the same acts, but have very different purposes and effects.

[Occulus]

92. Welcome to my ignore list.

There is no place for your sort of open and honest bigotry in my DU experience. Goodbye.

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. I needed to kick and recommend this as I was not around yesterday.

Thank you Sapph. I think your commentary is even better than the article. I cannot understand how people can not see the very real need for this legislation in a society where, without them, people would suffer economically, socially and physically...just because of who they are.

[JackBeck]

69. Oh, come on MrsG.

That could never happen in America.

[Puglover]

70. K and R

n/t

[Solly Mack]

71. Excellent

[JackBeck]

72. K&R...

[MsRedacted]

73. At the risk of getting flamed. . .

Hate crime laws in general are a slippery slope. A crime is a crime. A thought is a thought. You are entitled to think whatever you want to think. You are not entitled to commit a crime.

If you start prosecuting people-- adding special penalties based on the motivation of the crime (i.e. what they think) then what will stop the government from going one step further and prosecuting you strictly for what you think -- or what you say.

I agree that hate crimes are hideous, but rather than legislating "hate" as a crime -- shouldn't we allow jury's and judges the leeway they need to give out appropriate sentencing. The more despicable or hideous the crime -- the greater the sentence. And motivation plays a big part of that.

The other laws you suggest we 'repeal' give people rights they should have always been entitled to and/or protect them from kinds of discrimination that cannot be prosecuted under criminal law -- in other words they are civil protections. But make hate a crime -- that's an entirely different thing, IMHO.

[Robson]

74. That is where we are headed

Make no mistake that hate crime laws are mere stepping stones to be eventually used to punish those who make statements and thoughts that the power of the state finds offensive and hateful.

I don't care for the trend reversal in beliefs that I see coming from some so-called liberals, where they believe the state should have more power to determine thought and speech control. Liberals used to strongly believe in the right to free thought and speech.

There has been Orwellian science fiction that has addressed this progression to more government control over our lives. Their intent will be to eventually go far beyond physical crimes.

Even Sen. Webb of VA experienced a touch of this trend with some of his fictional writings.

[MrPrax]

84. Right said...

Quite a shocker the Dems are pushing this...legal systems have an organic relationship with their societies and the body of laws that have built up.

In the past 6 years, there have been a whole host of legal changes (Pat Acts, cyberlaws) that the legal system hasn't fully digested as to what will be their LONGTERM consequences for existing rights and practices.

Tossing this onto that burning pyre of civil rights is quite honestly irresponsible even if such laws had merit beyond political motivations. Moreover since in other countries there have been much discussion and trouble prosecuting these laws under the existing rights structure, it is very surprising that legislators in the US would pursue this without reference to some of those difficulties. I personally thought this stuff was old hat and died in Minnesota where it belonged.

Moreover, people should really wonder why the dems are so hellbent on giving an wildly unpopular President a popular 'veto'.

[JackBeck]

87. Like I said before, Hate Crimes laws have been around since 1969.

I don't see any "thought police" roaming the streets.

What I do see, is unprotected groups fighting for equal protection under the law.

[Occulus]

94. Adding the both of YOU to my ignore list as well

As I said upthread, there is no place in my DU experience for your sort of open and honest bigotry.

Goodbye and good fucking riddance.

[FreeState]

76. Two things

If you start prosecuting people-- adding special penalties based on the motivation of the crime (i.e. what they think) then what will stop the government from going one step further and prosecuting you strictly for what you think -- or what you say.

I agree that hate crimes are hideous, but rather than legislating "hate" as a crime -- shouldn't we allow jury's and judges the leeway they need to give out appropriate sentencing. The more despicable or hideous the crime -- the greater the sentence. And motivation plays a big part of that.

Two things. We have a system of law that uses intent as to why a crime was committed. You have first and second degree murder (pre-meditated/spur of the moment). There is good reason for this too. If some one is killed by a car, was the person run over after planning it or was it an accident that could have been prevented if the driver had followed the law. The same is with hate crime legislation. If a violent crime occurs was it because the accused wanted to make a quick buck holding up a store, or was the violent crime committed because the accused targeted the victim because of her sexual orientation? Both of these crimes are very different and should be treated differently.

Secondly leaving a Jury and Judge up to figure out the punishment is exactly why we need mandatory Hate Crimes sentencing guidelines. This is for equal protection - if you do not think there are juries/Judges out there that would look the other way because the victim was a lesbian you need to get out more... or read the history of Harvey Milk.

[JackDragna]

79. There's a difference between hate crimes..

..and other things we consider as motive when considering punishment. The tendency of the justice system is to consider motive insofar as where the person falls along the spectrum of spontaneous action vs. premeditation. I have no problem with considering someone's reason for committing a crime if it speaks to their motivation, but I am against a separate punishment for the motivation itself.

[FreeState]

81. Intent

I have no problem with considering someone's reason for committing a crime if it speaks to their motivation, but I am against a separate punishment for the motivation itself.

Isn't that what the hate crimes laws do now? They punish violent crimes that are committed based on intent (note you don't need motive to find guilt of crime). How would adding sexual orientation to the current laws change that?

[TechBear_Seattle]

86. You misunderstand the concept of "hate crime"

Hate crimes are actually two crimes: the actual action that occured, and a stated threat of further action against others who are or are perceived to be in the same group as the victim. The first is one or more specific acts, the second is terrorism. Hate crime sentencing enhancements are a penalty for that second crime.

An example: A black man is beaten up by white assailants. During the assault, the perpetrators make it clear that the victim was not some random joe but was picked specifically because of the color of his skin. The law states that there are two crimes here: the actual assault of the victim, and a clear threat of future violence against other African-Americans. Two crimes, two penalties.

Personally, I think the laws should be changed to become more inclusive. There should not be a list of communities who "qualify" for possible hate crime enhancement: Any criminal act which can be shown to be intended also as a terrorist threat against others in the victim's group, class or community should receive a hate crime enhancement.

[iverglas]

93. oh dear

... rather than legislating "hate" as a crime ...
... make hate a crime ...

Have you ever considered reading the things you're talking about before you do it?

Where would you ever have got the notion that anyone has "made 'hate' a crime"??

adding special penalties based on the motivation of the crime (i.e. what they think)

Someone else who needs to look "motivation" up in a dictionary.


I would imagine that at this very moment there are thousands of people sitting around thinking I hate _______s. And those damned _______s, too. Oh yeah, and I hate those ______s.

Hateful thoughts. Nary a crime committed ...

[TechBear_Seattle]

75. Very well put.

[TheMadMonk]

82. Hate crime legislation is less about deterence and more about JUSTICE!

This is a bit of a catchall covering a lot of earlier posts.


By prosecuting a crime as a hate crime, it moves the jurisdiction away from an environment that (almost certainly) fostered the mindset which led to the crime and might well be sympathetic to the perpetrator(s) to a (theoretically) level playing field where the crime will be tried on its merits rather than emotive values.


However I do have a problem with any enumerated list of "target" groups. A hate crime should be defined as generically as possible. If a large part of the motivation for a crime is a result of the victim's membership in a grouping reviled by the perpetrator (and generally a significant section of society at large). I believe the relevant psychiatric term is projection. Visiting the "sins" of the few onto the many renders it a hate crime.


And it would have to work for ALL reviled groups, both good and bad. Kick the shit out of a registered sex offender on spec, that's a hate crime too. Find him in your daughter's bedroom, worry about the carpet.