If you’ve heard the version I mentioned, it makes more sense. I don’t recall if robbery was mentioned as a motive in the article I read.
I watched the show in question and it is apparent that people making these claims are liars. Either they were lying then or they are lying now. There were several claims that the defendants knew Matthew Shepard (they said they didn’t) There were claims that one of them was a bisexual. (he said he wasn’t.) I do believe it was a hate crime. The “arguments” presented by the supports of this theory were too contradictory for me to believe their story.
You can read more here.
I’m a long-time Laramanian, so I know more than most people about this case.
Long ago I posted my own theory on the Shepard murder. Did a search but couldn’t find it. I had a strong suspicion that crystal meth was a key factor.
Do you know why the perps were identified so quickly? When Shepard was found they were already in jail, having been arrested for pistol-whipping a Hispanic whom they had seen slashing tires in the very early morning a few hours after Shepard was beaten and before he was discovered barely alive tied to a buck-pole fence. An officer recalled seeing one of Shepards credit cards on their dashboard.
Anyone want to buy a pece of the One True Fence?
<Mr. Duality ducks and runs away>
Was that necessary?
Esprix
Probably not necessary, no. But I have always wondered why victims like Matther Shepard and James Byrd are extensively covered by the media while murder victims like Brian Muha are completely unknown.
A murder is a murder, underneath it all. Unless, of course, the circumstances of that murder serve to make a political point.
I get uncomfortable when the right does this as well. It’s mileage out of tragedy, and terribly tempting to exploit.
Except it’s not always a political point. Sometimes a case simply horrifies people and the people who make the news are aware that people will pay attention to it. I’m not arguing there aren’t any politics here, but there are other reasons.
And the fact that there is a political point doesn’t mean that it’s automatically invalid. If it’s the case that in the relevant locality there exists a majority culture that says it’s okay to hate homosexuals and if it’s the case that a horrific murder can be (partially) explained by this social characteristic, then from my point of view, its totally legitimate to hold up the brutal murder as an illustration of why that particular societal characteristic should be reformed.
Good points, thanks. But does this necessarily mean that hate crime penalties are appropriate?
I’m very skeptical of them. A crime is a crime, and the particular motive for said crime doesn’t change that.
Definitely not necessary. Offensive to some, no doubt. I hope some of you got a giggle out of it.
It isn’t always about making a political point. Often the more photogenic victims get more publicity. The Jon-Benet Ramsey case was a prime example.
Are you saying that a majority of Laramanians hate homosexuals?
Cite, please.
Laramie is the second most liberal town in Wyoming. (Jackson is in first place.)
Cite.
Let’s assume that a county’s liberalness can be correlated with election results.
Note that The highest proportion of Kerry voters was in Teton County in the northwest (Jackson is the county seat), followed by Albany County (Laramie is its’ county seat) in the southeast.
Casper, one of the two largest towns in Wyoming, is very Republican and recently elected an openly gay Mayor.
Of course no one else wanted the job…
Except that one of the elements of most crimes, as defined by statute, is criminal intent. So motivation usually plays some role in defining precisely what the crime is. That’s why there’s a difference between murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and so on. Homicide can be defined as any one of a bewildering array of crimes. In some circumstances, of course, it’s not a crime at all (self-defense, execution).
I’m not sure that it’s helpful to define “hate” crimes differently from others - perhaps time will tell, as we see whether having such definitions in our criminal statutes has any deterrent effect, or whether it produces punishments that we, as a society, believe are appropriate. But defining a class of crime based upon what we believe was in the perpetrator’s head at the time he did the deed has been part of our legal system for centuries, so there’s nothing inherently odd about doing so in the case of “hate” crimes.
Please note the entire clause – **If it’s the case that in the relevant locality there exists a majority culture that says it’s okay to hate homosexuals.
There’s no point in demanding cites when no factual assertion has been made.
And actually, I should say my use of the word “majority” there is superfluous. If there’s any element of the local culture – whether majority, respected minority, or fringe – that says it’s okay to hate homosexuals, then it may be perfectly legitimate to hold up a horrific crime in an attempt to fight such a characteristic.
OK. It wasn’t, strictly speaking, a factual assertion. It was definitely an implication and allusion.