Well, no, at least not me.
The act is the crime, not the feelings behind it. Folks are allowed to feel whatever they want. When you punish feelings and motivations, you get into the revenge business, not the justice business. And I for one believe our legal system should stay as far from revenge as possible.
:rolleyes:
Crosspost. I have been impressed by some of your previous posts, but I think you misunderstood my stance on this subject. I didn’t clarify myself well enough.
Not particularly.
Because ordinarily, whether you get mugged, or not, is somewhat up to factors you can control, such as where you go, how your behave, and whether or not you bring friends with you. Beyond that, it’s crap-shoot, and we’re all in it together. For bias-bassed assaults, it’s your very existance that makes you a preferential target. These people can’t stop being black, or gay, or Mexican, or whatever, and modifing their own behavior won’t protect them.
In general, I’ve no issue with this appraoch, but I’d add a rider to the sentencing guidelines that says if bias can demonstrated, the sentence is increased by some significant amount. It’s not intended to create a specially protected groups of “endangered citizens”, it’s designed to correct the behavior of the perpetrators, and send a message that this particular behavior is unacceptable. That’s how societies everywhere define the boundaries of civilization: By proscribing unacceptable behavior. The worse the mis-behaviour, the stronger the sanction.
Well, yes it does. It also sends the message that whatever you think in your head, however you feel in your heart, we’re not going to tollerate violent hatred in your behavior. The law is being used to change a behavior that’s detrimental to us all.
iampunha, that was exactly my point.
I got called a ‘dyke’ for 3 years in HS. I’m pretty familiar with the kind of treatment you described. (not nearly the level in the OP.)
venoma,
good point… but I think that it is a difference between motivation and intention… IANAL, so this is just a guess here, but manslaughter is when someone does not mean to cause serious harm to someone but kills them… murder is when someone is trying to hurt somebody. Not motivation, but intention. An important distinction, I think.
Venoma, I agree that we’re talkig in different directions.
For what it’s worth, my first post was not directed at anyone in the thread. It was one of those dark and bitter “here we go again” comments that I have heard all too many times.
Bull. Murder One and manslaughter are different crimes. Motivation is not a factor in determining what to charge someone with. Unless it’s a hate crime, of course.
Same with assault. A slap to the face is different than getting beaten into a coma with baseball bats. Hence the different degrees in assault statutes. What you are saying is, if I go into a biker bar and ask a Harley woman to dance, and then Icepick and the boys get offended and beat me to such a pulp that I’m living off an IV drip for the next six months, this is somehow more tolerated because I “asked” for it. What you’re saying is, if the same group of Hells Angels did the same thing to John Q. GayMan with no “provocation”, somehow the guys who did me in are getting out of prison years earlier. That’s not equal protection and equal enforcement under the law. And it’s wrong on so many levels.
point taken, I tried to find a parallel, but that was the best I could do 
People who plan to hurt others, regardless of motivation, perhaps should be punished the same way. He’s got a wallet and Rolex vs. he’s got a guy on his arm should be punished the same way? Hmm. I don’t think I agree with that. Both are despicable, but in different ways. Moral depravity vs. prejudicial hate.
I’m not sure of the totality of laws regarding hate crimes, but I know they span far more than simply assault (harassment, verbal assault, threats, burning crosses, you get the idea) and they all are classed by motivation.
andygirl: I understand now (unwhoosh) and commiserate.
andygirl – no problem, no offense taken, and not to worry! 
I responded to what you said, though I knew, of course, it wasn’t you, but you-in-character-of-that-sort-of-pseudo-Christian, because I thought it was an important thing to say. As a Christian, it saddens me no end when people do hateful acts under the banner of Christ. So I thought it was worth answering seriously, even though I knew you weren’t serious.
How’s THAT for serious?
Well, you did say:
So, in that context, someone who is dead is DEAD and the method and motive for conveying death upon the victim is detestable, regardless. However, your later post pretty much conveys that that is not an accurate representation of your stance on it, so I’ll accept that you misrepresented yourself (Hell, I managed to do it about 5 times so far in this thread)
Yep, I’m in a agreement here. That is wrong. The justice system does NOT work on so many levels (here in Canada, child molestors get less jail time than someone poaching moose and deer). It can be argued that hate crime legislation is a PC-driven agenda, I suppose (don’t know if that’s what you’re getting at so I won’t say so). So what would you do to deter hate-driven crimes? Same thing as you would to regularly deter non-specific harrassment and assault?
Just as an aside, if I were a member of a persecuted group, I would be happy for hate crime legislation for this reason: even if one guy who beat me or my family up got put away, there would be that many more out there willing to do the same just because of my orientation/religion/race. Maybe that guy’s friends. Maybe they would already know about me. Scary, hmm? One person in a group gets convicted for hate-crimes, maybe they’ll be looking a bit more closely at the others.
If any of this doesn’t make sense, please do forgive me.
Forgive me, but I just really really really don’t get this. Not that I’m closed to the idea, it’s just that I’ve never understood it. I cannot believe that what happened to Fabian Padilla would have been morally or ethically better had he been straight, and he had flirted with Opela’s wife.
If it would be possible, I would appreciate a simple, clear, calm explanation as to exactly why the murder of a gay person and the murder of a straight person are not identically horrible.
Lib -
My understanding of the logic behind hate crimes laws goes something like this:
A crime against an individual perpetrated because of the race, gender or sexual orientation of that particular individual is seen not only as an attack on that person, but as an attack on all persons of that race, gender or sexual orientation. It is this perception of attack on multiple individuals that causes the hate crime to have stricter punishments.
I don’t know if I necessarily buy this either, although I think there is some truth to the logic (e.g. the OP’s fear, my fear as a woman of walking around alone after dark, etc.).
Does that help?
I seem to have misrepresented myself in stating that the way I did. I do not the murder of any person (in a crime of passion) to be less reprehensible than the murder of any other person (in a crime of hate). However, do you think it inconsiderable that a person, seeing his wife or girlfriend accosted, might not lose his temper and behave irrationally?
I admit to being prejudiced against the prejudiced. I see hate crimes as premeditated ones, as the people who commit them likely have thought and dwelled upon hating the group that the person they attacked belonged to (or seemed to, in their eyes). If you go around mouthing off about gays or blacks or women or white anglosaxon males! and how you want to wreak this and that physical abuse upon them, would that not be premeditation? Are there people who have commited what are known as ‘hate crimes’ that did not express this hatred beforehand?
In the example you quoted, I considered one act to be spontaneous and the other a considered action. Does not make one person less accountable than the other, but I think it does make them different crimes. (IANAL, again, I say.)
I don’t know. I do appreciate those explanations, and I do respect those who hold those views. Obviously, you’ve given it careful thought. I don’t know what my problem is. With me, I can’t get past thinking that I’m rationalizing. I guess I’m just not cut out to be a lawyer. I’ve never bought into the passion defense. Sorry. And the symbol-of-a-larger-populace thing is as fraught with ethical difficulty as the notion of “public property”. Thanks though, for taking the time.
Since this has turned into a debate on hate-crime legislation, let me introduce my long-thought-out, well-researched position on the matter: I don’t know.
I’m not sure if hate crime legislation is necessary; I am equally appalled at someone getting beaten for supporting the wrong football team as I am at gay-bashing. I would be against hate-crime laws altogether, if it seemed that the justice system was working without them. From the OP:
No jail time, no fine, no supervision, even. I doubt his wrist hurt a half hour later.
It’s like an open invitation. Want to beat the crap out of some gay fellers? Well, sheesh, don’t let us catch you, or you may have to spend a couple of weekends helping out at the soup kitchen.
So, I don’t want hate-crime laws; I think they’re divisive and may have serious backlash consequences. But if this gets much worse, if the justice system fails to address this in any other way, they may become necessary.
To address other comments:
Gobear, I live my life, and I do it well; I show my lover that I care for him, even out in public. I just wish that when I did so, I didn’t have to watch my back. Both my lover and I would be tough to take on in a fight; I wish I didn’t have to be. I can ignore the fear that lurks around when we flirt in public, but the fear is still there. It should be; keeps me alert, and keeps me ready to defend myself. But it pisses me off that I have to be combat-ready every time I take my boyfriend out to the movies.
And I know that others have it worse than we do in America. That doesn’t mean we have to put up with things being as bad as they are.
Miller, check some of the other links I posted in the OP. If you have some data suggesting that the incidence of anti-gay crime in the US is dropping, I’d be grateful to see it. It would be a real relief. But the trend, from the information I’ve been able to find, indicates that things are, indeed, getting worse.
Esprix, I’m sorry. God, I’m so sorry. I can only imagine how much that must hurt.
iampunha, if people judged others by their actions alone, aside from any prejudices, you’d be universally acknowledge to be among the best of humankind. I’ve been reading your posts for over a year, and have developed a lot of respect for you. You deserve a lot better than the way you were treated. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
And andygirl, I knew it was your post. I know who you are here online, and your wonderful perspective, and your caring nature. But reading that post, that summation of all we’re up against, got me raging mad anyway. I wish that the only place I ever heard that sort of zealotry was in jest like that.
For everyone else who’s posted their support, thank you. I am really grateful that the world is made up of people like yourselves; tolerant, generous, and wise. Please, if you can, spread as much of that around as possible.
That depends on wether or not the guy got less than another person who just beat up some random guy for no reason. If its not then its an open invitation to beat the crap out of anyone. Besides I don’t think getting fired and having a criminal record is a walk in the park either.
Though I do disagree with you here (I can’t in my right mind think myself to be among the best of humankind unless it’s a damn poor humankind, but reading the cite in the OP I can’t help but wonder how great it is . . . ), I appreciate the thought and please consider it very much extended back to you. [sub]Shit . . . a lovefest in the Pit. Again. I have GOT to learn to be more hateful.[/sub]
FWIW, my take on the hate crime issue: most crime is based on hate (some is just ignorance, not knowing something is a crime, etc). I think it show solidarity to say “If you do this because of X we’re going to punish you harder”, which to me is an implicit support of whatever X group is targeted. And I think there is a difference, and such should be recognized, between, say, punching someone for the hell of it and punching them specifically because they are gay (or you perceive them to be gay, or whatever). I understand the argument that it makes one group of people more “expensive” to commit a crime against, but when I see people still being killed (or otherwise violated) for their sexual orientation it makes me think that some people just can’t deal with the notion of someone being different and that difference being okay.
What I’d love to do is take all the children of the world and show them that gay/black/whatever else != bad, and all that stuff. Then before terribly long we would have a tolerant world and we would hopefully not need to worry about shit like this happening.
However, that’s an idealist perspective, IMO, and I doubt that every parent of every child would really be up for that, so until then you make really fucking big deterrents for the motive of killing people because of X thing (whether that be because of sexual orientation or some other minority status) and hope people will question them, rather than going through life saying “we don’t do X because we’d get punished”. Sort of like why you don’t steal; yeah, you’d get caught, but the shit obviously isn’t yours to mess with, so don’t.
:: pant pant pant ::
I think I hurt myself. I need a nap and a wet cloth to spread over my forehead.
Thanks for the good thoughts - I’m sure Randy would have appreciated them.
Two things: hate crime laws protect everyone (as iampunha pointed out, being perceived as gay is protected as much as actually being gay; similarly, a white person beaten up by non-whites simply because s/he is white is also protected); and I see hate crime laws as anti-terrorism laws (as SisterCoyote pointed out, an attack against the individual is truly an attack on everyone in that individual’s community).
No one is being punished for thoughts, but people are being punished when those thoughts become actions, just like any other crime.
Esprix
Thing 1 -Killing someone because they are black/gay/etc IS different than other killings. Getting killed becuase you hit on a biker’s girl is a result of what you did(not a reasonable, or sane result though). Members of the gay community are often killed for what they are.
From X-Men:God Loves, Man Kills
“You killed my sister! Why? What did we ever do?”
“You were born.”
Thing 2-I say it again, Phelps has it completely wrong. God LOVES fags(don’t like the word-but it better counters Phelps message). I’ve realised that part of my mission in life is spreading that message. As a Jew, I say we could use MORE gay Jews. Especially if they adopt and raise more Jews.
Thing 3-Clive Barker is openly gay. Many of his works include gay characters. Because of this, I assumed that his readers would attend, regardless of sexual orientation, his speaking at the gay&lesbian film festival. There were empty seats. Clive Barker, best selling novelists, endorsed by Stephen King, movies and comics based on his work, models made of his characters-and there were empty seats.
The next day he was signing his new book at Tower. The line was literally 3 blocks wrong. All these people had stayed away from an event with a much smaller crowd, and where you actually had time say more than 2 sentences to the man, just because it was sponsored by the gay community. I expected that kind of prejudice from most of society, but Barker fans? I was shocked. These people weren’t prejudiced-as long as no one was looking.
Esprix-I'd say something if I could think of anything to say.If I go and kill a random person, say for his wallet, then I’ve just killed a random person.
If I go out and find a man who I think looks gay and call him a dirty faggot and make it so the only thing to identify him are dental records, then I am doing it because I hate him, and I am doing it so that gay people will know that their kind is not acceptable, and more also so that gay people will know that I am after them and they are not safe.