why i disagree with the idea of "hate crime" laws

[UpsideDownFlag]

first of all, i think that any crime against another person is committed because of some level of hate or another. but my biggest problem is this- if you sentence a crime committed against a gay/lesbian or minority differently than normal, doesn't it just reinforce the idea that those people are different, somehow to be treated with a different standard than the rest of us? in my humble opinion, there should be standard punishments across the board. this is, however, merely my opinion.

[Dookus]

1. No

a hate crime is not just any crime committed against a minority.

A hate crime is a crime committed against a COMMUNITY.

If you are black and I set a bag of dogshit on fire on your porch, it is not a hate crime. It is a prank.

If you are black and I set a cross on fire on your front lawn, it is a hate crime. The reason is because one is a minor vandalism against an indivual - the second is a threat against ALL black people.

If you beat me up because I'm an ass, that's one thing. If you beat me up because I'm queer, you are terrorizing ALL gay people.

Hate crimes ARE worse than other crimes.

[UpsideDownFlag]

3. i respectfully disagree.

[Dookus]

6. But you haven't

explained why you disagree.

Can you address the points I made?

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. yes. i'll articulate.

if a person attacks a black or homosexual person, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're attacking that whole community. who decides when they are or not? i didn't say that my argument was flawless, its just that the notion rubs me the wrong way.

[Dookus]

15. You missed the point entirely of my earlier post

I admit readily that not every crime against a minority is a hate crime.

Nobody suggests that crimes against minorities should be punished more severely than crimes against straight white males.

What you overlooked entirely is the concept that SOME crimes against minorities are meant to intimidate and harrass a community, and others are not.

If I kill a black man in a bar fight, that is a crime against him. If I gather a posse, drag him from his house, and hang him from a tree in front of his family, that is a hate crime.

Do you really not see the difference?

[Mr. Blonde]

4. However, who decides who is committing a hate crime

and who doesn't like an individual?

P.S. I think Jibjab watched South Park tonight.

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. i dont have cable.

but i do like southpark.

[Mr. Blonde]

11. Then it is interesting that

Cartman's Silly Hate Crime was the episode on tonight. Interesting timing.

[UpsideDownFlag]

13. that is interesting.

but of no consequence. besides, i thought SP was on Wednesday night...?

[Mr. Blonde]

22. Everynight at 8:30

No consequence, but a lot of interesting things aren't.

[kanrok]

2. That is the best articulation against these laws I've heard

[Dookus]

7. that's odd

because that is the ONLY articulation against these laws I've ever heard.

They ignore the reality that some crimes are committed against individuals and some crimes are committed against communities.

[kanrok]

25. I'm an ex-prosecutor

I know that, at least in my state, we can introduce at a sentencing hearing evidence of the motive behind a crime. The motve can then be used to enhance the sentence. If the motive was that the crime was committed because of a person's individual characteristic, be it the color of their skin or the nature of their sexual preference, it would increase the penalty. I agree with the original poster that each crime of violence is committed with some level of hate. If the hate is directed towards a person's background, to me, it is more egregious than one committed as an act of passion. So, it seems reasonable to me that additional laws need not be enacted to address this problem. Kapiche?

[Dookus]

30. I'm an ex-Italian major

it's "Capisce?"

Then it sounds like we agree. If the motive is considered and extra penalties are added, then there's no problem. That *IS* what hate-crime legislation provides for.

[kanrok]

40. Touche. Or is it touchet?

Yes, we do agree. Except that I believe that there are laws on the books (at least in my state) that already provide a mechanism to achieve the goal that additional legisation is designed to address. I agree that if you commit a crime against another person because of the color of their skin or the nature of their sexual preference, it is evil, and should be punished accordingly. A person committing such an offense foe this reason should be sentenced to more years in prison compared to the same crime being committed against someone because they got pissed at them for some real or imagined slight.

[Dookus]

46. cool

and it's "touche" with an accent ague over the final "e".

What I find surprising about the whole "hate crime" debate is that we have ALWAYS made accommodations for motive. We have degrees of murder, and motive is always a consideration.

But the right wing goes NUTS when we propose that we should consider whether the motive is race or sexual orientation. I honestly believe they want fag-bashers to get off easy.

[kanrok]

56. Yeah, I see your point

I want to believe that everyone believes like I do. That you consider the reason behind the crime and punish accordingly. Fuck the repub pukes who peach the bible with hate in their hearts. That is PRECISELY the reason I'm a dem. Cheers.

[St. Jarvitude]

95. I always thought it was touchéz...

Maybe I'm just an ignorant German student though :)

[Dookus]

99. nope ....

no "z" on the end. It means "touched", from the french verb "toucher".

[NashVegas]

103. Oh God. Conjugation. Ugh.

this like being back in 9th grade. Someone hand me a joint, then.

"touchez vous."
"touchez nous"
(sorry, don't know where the acute key is on Windows)
And "accent acute" turns up about 80,000 more results on Google than "accent ague." "Accent aigue" turns up 1k less, but does a better job of explaining why we pronouce it "ay-goo" and not "ah-goo."

Never would have bothered you, but you started it :P

[HEyHEY]

8. A hate crime is a crime committed because someone is different

Not just a minority. A Chinese guy could be charged with a hate crim for burning a cross on a white guy's lawn

Thoug granted it would be a wierd trial

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. Hate Crimes Reinforce a Mob Mentality.

Do you remember Matthew Shepherd? People actually rallied around the transgressors. It encouraged hatred against all gays. A crime against a person for the sake of vandelism (for example) doesn't have any far reaching consequences. A crime that is against a minority group in a hate crime way is obvious and encourages others to do likewise. Have you ever seen the consequences of a hate crime up close?

I hate when shows like South Park oversimplify the issue.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. I agree with you - I am against "hate crimes" as well

It's one of the Big Liberal Lies I like to fight against - the idea that if we just legislate it, it will go away.

"If we make hate illegal, then we'll all live in peace and harmony!"

All crime is hate crime at some level, whether personal, communal, racial, national, etc.

If we believe all people are created equal, and are equal under the law, then the punishments for crimes against all people should be equal.

[UpsideDownFlag]

16. thank you for articulating my argument better than i did.

[Dookus]

17. Rabrrrrrr

it breaks my heart to read your post. I had always liked and respected you.

[Misunderestimator]

24. Mine too...

It's impossible to argue the point over and over. Some people get it and some people don't... and maybe I'm just tired.

[UpsideDownFlag]

26. i'm sorry that i 'just don't get it'. can we agree to disagree? n/t.

[Misunderestimator]

34. I hate that expression, and no.... we can't...

if you can't understand how it is MORE of a crime for someone to target a certain person because that person was of a certain group, than to target a person for purely personal reasons (as in that most murders are committed by someone personally known by the victim and usually a spouse or other family member).

I understand that you think that the punishment should be the same but consider this... If a husband kills his wife because of some real or imagined transgression on her part, and he serves time in jail for that crime (which, arguably should be the rest of his life)... Is he as much a threat to society when he is released as is someone who targeted one of anonymous millions, simply because his victim was gay, or black? Do you think his hate for those millions he did not yet kill dissipated while he served his sentence? I doubt it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

39. well, ok then.

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. I find it unfortunate that you can't like or respect someone with

whom you disagree.

Personally, I prefer to see all crime punished. Motive, to me, is irrelevant - murder is murder, harassment is harassment, intimidation is intimidation, theft is theft.

By setting up "hate crimes", you marginalize those who have been violated but not violated "hatefully". It also suggests that some crimes are done for the sake of "like" or "love", apparently. Or at worse, "indifference". By setting up "hate crimes", you are saying to people, "Your life isn't worth as much as these other people's. Sorry."

I don't see any reason for it.

Punish all the crimes, and punish them equally, and protect all people equally under the law, and value all life and all propoety equally.

[Dookus]

32. Please read what I've posted previously

the notion that if you shoot a black man who you find fucking your wife is the same level of crime as pulling a black man from his home and hanging him from a tree in front of his family because he dared to "act up" is nonsense.

There ARE hate crimes. What happened to Matthew Shepherd was NOT just a simple murder - it was an act of terrorism against ALL gay people. The effects are worse. The motive is more evil. The people who commit such crimes are greater dangers to the community at large.

[UpsideDownFlag]

35. "more evil" i'd like to see a women whose child got killed for his wallet

be told that it was a less evil slaying. can you see where i'm coming from?

[BigMcLargehuge]

38. yes, and you are missing the point

a child killed for his wallet isn't meant to be a warning to ALL OTHER children. Whereas Matthew Shepard murder was meant to warn all other gays that they weren't safe.

[Misunderestimator]

43. Thanks for getting it, BMLH... really

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. That's a great way of putting it

It just makes sense. If you are downtown and you threaten a person with a knife, when you get caught you are charged with one count of aggression. If you were downtown and you threatened 10 people with a knife you are charged with 10 counts of aggression or assault with a deadly weapon. A hate crime is a way in which someone threatens millions at the same time. Therefore, it damn well should be tried differently.

[BigMcLargehuge]

51. you said it very well

:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

57. It's certainly meant as a warning to all children who have wallets

just like the old "killing a kid for his shoes" thing we had a number of years ago. That's just as terroristic, and caused as much fear, I should think.

[Dookus]

62. Please do me a huge favor

and just this once, don't compose a response in your mind while reading this and actually stop and consider the arguments here.

Do you not see a difference between shooting a black man who has done you wrong and shooting a black man simply because he's a nigger?

[Rabrrrrrr]

69. Do ME a huge favor

read the post I wrote a few posts ago, in which I answered that question.

I'm saying pre-mediation is pre-mediation. Whether I go out and decide I'm agonna kill me a black guy, or I decide I'm agonna go out and kill me a random guy at the truck stop, it's all the same to me.

One's a crime against a black guy, one's a crime against a truck-stop-patronizing guy. Both are equally bad, because they're pre-meditated.

And, as I mentioned before, and already asked you once to re-read but which request to re-read you apparently ignored, YES I do see a difference between the two very unrelated crimes you offered as examples.

[Dookus]

75. OK

I get your point.

I have no respect for you anymore because your position is ignorant, insensitive, and right-wing. I hope this isn't deleted as a personal attack, because I don't mean it as one.

Of course, there are no hate-crimes against white straight men.

[Rabrrrrrr]

77. Well, all I can do is speak the truth as I see it

and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm more interested in protecting all people equally and offering the same rights, and same punishments, to all people.

But I bear you no ill will for the position you hold.

[Dookus]

79. have you EVER heard

of somebody proposing lesser penalties for random crimes?

You seem to believe that if I get beat because somebody wants my wallet and that if I get beat because I'm gay, both crimes are equal, you are just so goddamned ignorant about what it's like to be a disliked minority in this country.

The chips have fallen. You are not the person I thought you were.

[Rabrrrrrr]

86. No, I haven't ever heard of that proposal

But I have heard of people proposing HARSHER penalties for "hate crimes".

I may not be the person you thought I am, but that is the pain of getting to know people - especially so slowly over such a medium as this. We make our preconceptions based on a few exchanges, and then those preconceptions are constantly refit and readjustedas we learn more and more about someone else. And hopefully, when disagreements happen, we remember all the other good stuff that we DO agree on and rejoice over those.

Perhaps I am not the person you thought I am, but I can only be the person I am. Always growing, always changing, always moving, yes, but still, I can only be honest about who I am *today*. And today, this is who I am.

[Dookus]

90. OK

goodbye.

edit: I'm happy for you - you evidently have never known fear in your life. I envy that.

[Susang]

92. If you could do me a favor Dookus

And please refrain from calling the example of a man shooting a man for sleeping with his wife as "shooting a black man who has done you wrong". Last I heard, we females were no longer considered property and are free to sleep with whomever we wish, no matter who thinks they were "wronged".

As a matter of fact, your scenario would probably result in the shooting of the woman and the man, considering this tasty statistic:
Intimate partners and guns pose a lethal threat to women. From 1976 to 1999, approximately one third of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner. From 1990 to 1999, nearly two thirds of female victims of intimate partner homicide were killed with a gun. From:http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/womenfs.htm

You know I love you Dookus, :loveya: but you are talking about "hate crimes" here and women were pretty much the original victims of hate crime (if you'll forgive the pun). Excusing one "hate crime" to accentuate another will not help you prove your case.

[Dookus]

100. So sorry...

I didn't mean my example the way you interpreted it. I was simply pointing out the difference between a crime of passion and a hate crime, where both cases involved a black man as victim.

I could've chosen countless other examples and probably should have.

[Susang]

101. No problem

I just do not believe that shooting someone who is sleeping with your wife (or shooting your wife for sleeping with someone, which is statistically more likely to happen) is a "crime of passion". I believe that excuse was created by men for men when they were no longer able to claim their property rights over their spouses.

But anyway.... :-)

[Pithlet]

98. Exactly

I really don't understand what is so hard about that. All other motives are okay to consider except for hatred of a group?

[Dookus]

42. No i can't

because you're being willfully obtuse.

If my mother were killed by a mugger, I would NOT feel any alleviation by knowing it was just a simple crime. But that is not the issue.

If my mother were killed because she were black, however, and I were black, and my family were black, and all my friends are black, I would feel terrorized. I would feel that my safety, and that of my friends and my family was endangered. I would feel that I should minimize my presence - be subservient and quiet.

I'm asking you to examine not just the individual victim of the crime, but the wider community that is terrorized by it.

The question comes down to this: Is a man who shoots a black man he finds fucking his wife just as dangerous as a bigot who drags a black man out of his home and hangs him from a tree in front of his family? If you think both crimes are equal, you a very blessed straight white man.

[UpsideDownFlag]

44. ...ok, this is something i need to think more about.

bear with me while i digest your points, i'm seeing the value of your arguments.

[Dookus]

48. thanks

I appreciate your willingness to consider it.

I know this is a very emotional issue, and I'm sorry I jumped on it so strongly.

I truly believe that I can convince anybody of the rightness of my view on this particular issue if we all just REALLY listen to the other side's argument.

[BigMcLargehuge]

50. and a thanks from me too

[UpsideDownFlag]

52. no problem...i honestly had only considered it from what is apparently

the "southparkian" point of view.

[BigMcLargehuge]

54. the fact that you were able to see the larger issue and reasoning

behind hate crime laws speaks well of you.

:)

[UpsideDownFlag]

60. thanks. now for something entirely different, who's that in your avatar?

[BigMcLargehuge]

63. Toshiro Mifune from the movie Sanjuro

I am a fan, and a swordsman.

[UpsideDownFlag]

i've been told that he's a major badass.

[BigMcLargehuge]

70. well... less so now as he's dead

but check out his movies if you get a chance... I recommend Yojimbo, Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai, Drunken Angel, and the Samurai series

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. So if you steal from someone richer than you, just because they're

richer than you, is that a hate crime? That's against a whole group.

And, as to your first question, no I don't think the two crimes are equal - but not because of motive, because of pre-meditation. Killing a guy screwing your wife is one thing; going through all the effort to plan to go drag a guy our of his home and string him up, that takes planning and premeditated.

As it is under the law, I believe that would already be a crime more punishable than a crime of passion.

The better question would be "Is there a difference between dragging a random guy out of his home and dragging a black guy, just because he's black, out of his home" and I would say no, there isn't. Not in terms of hate.

I realize you believe that doing a crime against someone BECAUSE of some characteristic they have (gender, race, orientation) is a crime against that whole community and threatens that whole community; and I realize that you believe it is therefor also an act of terrorism against that entire community; and I realize that you also believe that someone who commits such a crime is far more likely to commit another one than someone who just commits a crime "at random". And that therefor the "hate crime" person must be punished more.

But I dno't agree with any of those, because a crime 'at random' is the worst of them - it's either a crime against the ENTIRE community. because it's random, or it's a crime against no one else since it was specifically against the one person. The random crime is the most nefarious, for it is done with NO reason at all - truly psychotic, I should think. I certianly don't believe that someone who kills his wife is any less dangerous than someone who kills a homosexual. The first guy could be considered to have hatred toward the entire communal set of "wives". Or possibly "adulteresses" or maybe "abusive alcoholic females" or "submissive docile shrews" or "nagging annoying spendthrifts". Who knows? I don't know.

And I certainly don't want to be in the business of legislating thought.

To me, if it's a crime it's ipso facto 100% bad. No degrees of badness based on some random "category du jour" of the victim. It's bad. All the way. Automatically.

Do we protect rich people as a class? White people? Middle-class people? Foreign car owners? Geeks? Nerds? Football players? Silver collectors? People who carry large amounts of cash? Banks? 7-11s?

My biggest concern is that it treads heavily into two areas - it establishes some people as more valuable as others, and establishes some motives for committing crimes as more "evil" than others, and it establishes a first step into making some emotions and thoughts illegal.

[Dookus]

58. Please, Rabrrrrrr

it will take us centuries before any legal system considers faggots and niggers more important than you.

This has NOTHING to do with individual victims being more important. It has to do with whether the crime itself affects an individual or a community.

Answer me this: Who is the worse criminal and a greater danger to society?

a) a man who finds a black man fucking his wife and shoots him
b) a man who drags a black man from his home and hangs him from a tree in front of his family because the victim was "uppity"?

If you think both crimes are equal, you are, as I said elsewhere, a very blessed white straight man.

[Rabrrrrrr]

59. I think if you read my post, you'll see that I answered that question

right off the bat.

[Dookus]

68. I did read your original post

obviously.

And you called my position a "big lie".

I would urge you to read the arguments against your position and consider whether you REALLY believe a bar-room stabbing is equivalent to the lynching of a civil-rights worker.

I'm serious... please take a few minutes and think about it. Don't just respond reflexively.

The fact is, I've been watching Republicans for two days and I have NO fucking patience for right-wing talking points here on DU. And the notion that "all crimes are hate crimes" is a major right-wing talking point.

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. I do think it's a big lie

that one can legislate thought. "Make racism illegal, and it will go away! YAY!"

And I have no patience with people who are all-or-nothing, in-or-out thinking: republicans, God punish their blackened, tiny little souls, do occasionally come up with something good. Democrats, God love their compassionate and well-meaning hearts, sometimes come up with boneheaded ideas. Good meaning ideas, but boneheaded.

I'm not so married to one "brand" of ideology that I don't feel I can't look at others and take what is good, and can't criticize what I don't like.

I don't know that the "no hate crimes" is specifically Republican, though I'm not surprised they're gung ho on it, but I'm certainly not sitting on my argument BECAUSE it's republican. I'm sitting on it because it makes sense to me.

And it's odd, because so often it's the republicans who want to legislate thought.

[Dookus]

76. ciao, rabrrrrrr

you won't take a minute to consider what we're really saying. You have insulted me and disappointed me. I'm not saying this simply because you disagree with me - you have NOT been able to respond to the real arguments presented.

Perhaps some day you will have a gay child who is beaten for his/her sexuality. Maybe then you'll understand. Until then, enjoy the superiority of your white heterosexuality.

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. Is that equivalent to (though not as serious as) a hate crime?

Shutting someone out because of their orientation and/or race?

Just curious.

You are always welcome in my life, Dookus, even though we disagree.

I simply cannot value one person's life, or stuff, more highly than I can value any other person's. Whether gay or straight, American or Iraqi. It's all equally precious.

[Dookus]

83. you are simply not acknowledging what we're saying here

this is NOT about whether my life is more valuable than somebody elses. I have asked you a few times to PLEASE not read these arguments while composing your counter-argument. Just read them and ponder them, and THEN compose your response.

I have NEVER stated my life is more important than anybody else's. The arugment is NOT about the individual victim.

Of course the victim is the victim, regardless of motive. Only the right-wing argues that.

What I'm trying to explain is that a minority who is beaten or killed BECAUSE he or she is a minority is a worse crime than simply beating or killing somebody because s/he has hurt you.

Matthew Shepherd's murder was a much greater crime than any random shooting. James Byrd's lynching in Texas was a GREATER crime than any random murder of a black man.

Do you not think that black people in Texas were terrorized by the Byrd lynching? Do you not think gay people in Wyoming were terrorized by the Matthew Shepard murder?

I suspect you're part of a demographic that doesn't ever have to worry about hate crimes.

[BigMcLargehuge]

61. you're mistaking what "equal" means in this context

when the first hate crime laws were employed, to bust and convict the seven guys responsible for the murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi because "violating their civil rights" was a federal charge and not a state charge of murder, of which they would have been acquitted, it sent a message to Klan members in mississippi that they could get prison time for continuing to burn down black churches and lynch black people.

The white southerners in the Klan didn't consider the blacks (or jews) as equals, BUT the hate crime law elevated the victims to equal status with that of their murderers. The point isn't to make one person serve more time for being a gay basher, it's meant to discourage OTHER gay bashers from bashing gays because the sentence is harsher.

As for random crime... it isn't meant to send a message to an entire and specific group. It's random. A crime of passion is a crime of passion, it isn't meant to send a message to all other unfaithful spouses (for example), but to punish that one spouse. That's a crime of passion.

You can't expect me to believe that you consider the activities of a Klan member who kills a black man for being out with a white woman to be the same as a husband who kills his wife's lover.

The overall motive is completely different.

[BlueJazz]

14. I think you've got a decent point.

I don't seem to remember ever seeing a "Hate Crime status"
against a Guy/Man with long hair or a person with one leg or an
individual with a low IQ.

Dookus said that if someone sets fire to dog-poop on a porch, it's a prank. No..it's a crime.
If you beat someone up..it's a crime no matter what sexual type you are.

If All folks had the same rights (as they should) there would be no reason to have these laws.

[Dookus]

18. evidently

you only read half of my post.

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. if you treat equally as other crimes, then helps minimize the damage done

and lessons the free press given to the commiters of the crime. think about how the white power groups were all over the news after the texas truck-dragging killing.

[BlueJazz]

37. I understand what you're saying ..

but aren't all crimes against a community?
If I beat up a black Man (heaven forbid) could it not be that he is just a loud mouth prick and not because he is Black?
If I set fire to poop on a Gays Porch, who decides that I'm just
an immature idiot and the act didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Dude inside the house is Gay?

I'm not arguing with you..I just don't quite see the difference.

On Edit: If you are black and I set a cross on fire on your front lawn, it is a hate crime. The reason is because one is a minor vandalism against an indivual - the second is a threat against ALL black people.

Yes.. THAT can be absolute.

[Dookus]

53. cool...

we're making progress.

I honestly DO understand your position. ALL crime should be treated harshly. But we have to acknowledge the reality that if you vandalize my house by breaking a window, you might get six months to a year. If you vandalize my house spray-painting "die FAG", you deserve more prison time, because your crime is not just against me, but against ALL gay people in my town. It is an act of terrorism.

[BlueJazz]

65. Yes..I have re-examined my position..

and you are quite correct.
I suppose a part of me is worried about D.A.'s using the hate crime laws to further their career even if there is no proof a hate crime was committed.

(Two friends of mine work in a law office and tell me things that
truly scare me about some D.A.'s out there....Brrrr! )

Your examples though, would leave no doubt and on that, I absolutely agree.

[BigMcLargehuge]

19. the point is, if you beat a guy up SOLELY because he's gay

that's a hate crime. If you beat up a guy in a bar fight for spilling your drink and he turns out to be gay, it's not.

Are these distinctions so hard to see?

[Mr. Blonde]

23. But won't a DA try for the hate crime penalty?

What if you know a guy is gay, he spills a drink on you and then you beat him up? Wouldn't they then try to prove that you overreacted because he was gay?

[BigMcLargehuge]

27. and if the evidence played out that you (the beater) were very

anti-gay, the charge would probably stick too. It may be the case that you WOULDN'T have beaten him if he was straight and spilled a drink too.

The point is, the DA will try to establish a history of anti-gay violence or known anti-gay behavior to attach a hate crime charge.

There are a million different possibilities or situations that could lead to it, but in the general application, I stand by my description.

[Mr. Blonde]

29. So someone who hasn't acted on it before

would get off? Yet someone who has done things like use gay and stupid as synonyms might not?

[BigMcLargehuge]

31. yes

[Mr. Blonde]

33. Good thing I'm a lover not a fighter than I guess

because I have been known to say gay meaning stupid. I claim innocence on that though. I'm a product of my environment.

[BigMcLargehuge]

36. we are all products of our environments

and if we discuss the details and theoretical encounters the issue gets very, very muddy.

That's why I write telecommunictions training and am not a lawyer I guess.

Peace :)

[BlueJazz]

45. Ha!..Don't feel alone..I use Gay to mean carefree and Happy.

Maybe it's because I know several Homosexuals and I don't think too
much about the implications.???

[BigMcLargehuge]

47. the point is, language wouldn't be that big a consideration

once it was established that you weren't someone who behaved in a hostile manner towards homosexuals. And, Gay actually means carefree and happy too.

[JohnKleeb]

94. Dude youre making good sense to me

Thats what Ive always thought the way the law was. You know if you specifically target someone because they are black, gay, etc.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Further, Hate Crimes also have negative mental consequences as well as

physical. A kid gets called a dork on the way home from school, fine. A kid gets called a s**c on the way home from school, that is going to stay with him or her from a long time. A family gets a rock thrown through their house, fine. A family gets a rock thrown through their window with "die n*****s* on it. That is going to have deep psychological effects. Studies have shown that when a minority grows up in an environment where they are even just made aware of stereotypes they perform less well on tests, even if they themselves do not believe these stereotypes. Thus, a hate crime must be punished in such a way that the punishment is restitution for ALL aspects of the crime, not just the ones that show.

[Dastard Stepchild]

41. I do believe it to be a special kind of crime...

when a person bludgeons another individual repeatedly in the head while screaming "die, faggot, die." The key word here is "faggot." Yes, this is a crime against a person, but also, this is a crime against "faggots." The victim was already "treated differently" by the attacker when being singled out for sexual orientation. I do not think it at all inappropriate to convict the attacker on these same grounds.

[miss_kitty]

64. JibJab, my extremely intellgent friend in california

agrees with your point of view. i feel ambivelent...it is adding punishment for thought.

that said, the reason someone is picked out to be beat on is because they are perceived as different. however, if a white bully is beating up on a straight slightly-built white guy, just because he can, why is THAT not a hate crime?
hate crimes are usually a 2-1 ratio or more...maybe there should be a punishment based on a ratio of beaters to beatees, as opposed to trying to decide if mr gayhater and his pals went after mr i'mproudtobegay, because of his gayness...
take mr gayhater and his pals out longer because it was 3 against 1.
does that make sense? or should i take my marinol now?

[BigMcLargehuge]

66. the point is...

a hate crime is one committed against one (or more) persons meant to send a message to all the other persons in that group. There are a bunch of examples earlier in the thread that might provide some illustration of the point.

[miss_kitty]

71. like i said i have ambivelence about this issue

i see a lot of stuff in black and white. this is not one of them because yes i know, the beaters are going after someone simply because they are gay or black or chinese. that is heinous. full stop. why is that WORSE than going after whimpy straight same race guy, because they hate whimps?

that's why i don't geddit.

[BigMcLargehuge]

72. because in the first case they are going after a black guy

or a gay guy, or a korean guy to warn all the other black, gay, or korean guys. That's the difference.

[miss_kitty]

81. so beating a wimpy guy because you ABSOLUTEY DESPISE AND HATE

wimpy guys is not as bad? wimpy guys are fair game?

i understand the concepts of gayness and race...i get that.

what i am saying, why exclude ANY group from the hate thinger? if someone is beaten out of hate, period, that is a hate crime. i'm not stopping at race, gender or sexual orientation.

[BigMcLargehuge]

82. because the guys these laws were meant to prosecute

didn't have a problem with wimpy guys, they were the Klan, they had a problem with black people and Jewish people (among all others not white and protestant).

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

67. ALL crimes are perceived as different depending on motive

that's why we have "degrees" of assault and murder. If I calculatedly murder you, my crime is worse than if I shoot you in passion.

Why is it only when the motive is racial or sexual hatred that people insist we should ignore motive?

[miss_kitty]

78. i don't think i was clear

i understand degrees of criminality. my dad was chief parole officer for this state, an atty, both parents had sociology degrees and we pretty much discussed this sort of thing throughout my youth.
what i don't get is this: why is it a hate crime to lay a beating on a guy you hate for gayness, or other racedness, both not a hate crime to go for the beatdown on a a guy that is hated for being a wimp? isn't that sending a message to wimpy guys? on one level, i just don't completely grasp the concept, but on another level i agree totally with the concept.

it's okay to be ambivalent about some stuff...it gives us time to think and grow. there are plenty of people on both sides to take up my slack on this issue, and i have plenty of fully-formed well thought out opinions on other important issues...

[Dookus]

87. read the whole thread

NOBODY proposes that random crime should be forgiven. What we're saying is that SOME crimes should be prosecuted based on motive. this is NOT a new idea. Murder and assault have considered motive for centuries. Motive has ALWAYS been a consideration. But godfuckingforbid we consider hatred against niggers and faggots as a motive... then we're all uppity.

Fuck that. If you're against hate crimes legislation, you are a racist and a homophobe. I'm sick of pussying around with this. Stop and fucking THINK about this issue... read the arguments here... If you want to defend an ignorant, racist, homophobic position, then do so. I know who you are.

[UpsideDownFlag]

74. the process of talking in this thread has made me think differently

and i'm sorting out my thoughts on the issue. ask me in a little while.

[anti_shrub]

85. The only thing that bothers me

.....and I hate to admit it because it sounds so right wing, but I've seen it happen:

A white guy beats up a black guy because he's black, obviously that's a hate crime and it'll be punished accordingly.

A black guy beats up a white guy because he's white, it's not a hate crime.

When I was in high school there were black guys who picked on white dudes like me because we where white knowing if I ever got pissed of and beat their asses, they could claim it was because they were black. I was also told in no uncertain terms (by teachers) that they were afraid of punishing black kids for fear of appearing racist.

See, I know minorities get singled out by idiots just for being black or gay or what have you, but there's also the mindset that hate crime laws help create the same motives that lead to them being singled out by making it seem like the group in question is somehow better than everyone else.

It's like a vicious cycle: hate crime laws that are designed to protect groups end up causing resentment that lead to hate crimes being committed.

What's the answer? Who knows. Obviously someone who does violence because someone's black or gay or whatever needs to learn the error of their ways, but are laws that (to the person with the bigotry) make it seem like their bigottry is justified the answer?

I guess if I knew the answer to that, I'd be a millionare....

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. Prithee, don thee thine asbestos leotards and breeches

I foresee a salvo of flames to alight upon thine ass, anon.

:hi:

[anti_shrub]

91. Hopefully I explained myself properly

I understand and agree with the concept of hate crime laws but I don't think they get applied correctly.

[Dastard Stepchild]

96. I agree with your assessment that humanity can be hypocritical...

There is an unfortunate tendency to enact a double standard in some scenarios. That said, hate crimes legislation, as a whole, is not egregiously abused in this manner. My Nana used to always say that one does not shoot the dog for having a few ticks. A rather colloquial way of saying that, as a whole, the system does more benefit than harm.

I'm not speaking from authority here, but I've not heard of any cases where the hate crimes law has been abused or used improperly, though I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary.

[FDRrocks]

89. It depends on how its prosecuted...

If I'm ever going to get in a fight, and somehow get charged with assault, it could happen with any person of any race. But if witness testimony can show that racial slurs were used, by either race that is involved, or something of that ilk, I agree it would be a crime against a community.

As it is, the South Park episode referenced above is flawed. If I walked up and punched a black guy, an asian guy, a latino guy, etc.... I would not be charged, de facto, with a hate crime.

[bookfreak]

93. There is a difference though

If I commit a crime against Bob because I am angry at him for doing X against me, that is an isolated incident. Bob and only Bob has been affected and put in danger. Assuming I have gotten over my issue with him and don't intend a repeat offense, Bob may not even be in further danger.

If I decide however that I hate blacks and want to commit crimes against them simply because they are black, that is an entirely different story. Then an entire *group* of people are in danger simply because of their class. Any random person in that group can be a victim at any moment, even if I have never met them in my life.

That is the particularly heinous nature of a "hate crime". The idea that a person can be made a victim for no reason other than the fact that they belong to a particular group that some person, or group of persons, has decided to hate. Gays/lesbians, blacks, some particular religion, a disfavored political group, whatever.

That is why "hate crime" laws need to exist.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

97. People who commit hate crimes are more dangerous

I find out some guy treated my sister badly on a date so I beat the crap out of him. Some guy beats the crap out of some black guy just because he's black. Who is more dangerous and should be kept from society longer? That's my understanding of hate crime laws.

[JVS]

102. Shouldn't this be in GD or somewhere else? The lounge is for fun

[skygazer]

104. This is a very interesting thread

And I agree with the posters who argue that hate crimes are by their very nature worse than crimes against a single person because they are directed at an entir group. But who defines the crime?

I am just afraid that it is susceptible to abuse. When you start trying to define exactly why a person committed a crime, you run into some pretty gray areas. Not all crimes are crystal clear in this respect and when you are dealing with people, as is often the case, who have a criminal record there is often the desire to "lock 'em up". I think it would be fairly easy to make a case against most people, particularly those who have committed other crimes, of some sort of bias. And it may not be there in that particular crime.

To say that truth and justice will prevail is to close our eyes to the flaws in our justice system in which many innocent people are jailed because of overzealous police work or racial profiling. There is no guarantee that just because the people charged with hate crimes are probably going to be white males, they will not be discriminated against too.

I will probably catch hell for this but I do worry about it. Some things are very difficult to legislate clearly. When there is room for abuse, it often happens, even out of the best of intentions.