CA Bill seeks to eliminate "gay panic" defense

[vniow]

The Bay Area men convicted last year of murdering a Newark transgender teenager said they panicked upon learning that the beauty they had been intimate with was biologically male.

Using that ``panic defense,'' their attorneys called it merely a manslaughter, but jurors rejected that argument. Now a civil rights group wants the California Legislature to redress what they see as victim-blaming in hate-crime cases.

Named in honor of the 17-year-old who was beaten and strangled in October 2002, the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act would amend jury instructions to state that the use of so-called ``panic defenses'' is inconsistent with California's comprehensive hate crimes law.

Hate crimes are criminal acts (or attempted acts) against an individual or group because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

Panic defenses are almost exclusively used in crimes against victims who are -- or perceived to be -- gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13636982.htm


Its about time this homo/transphobic defense was put out to pasture.

[mactastic]

I panicked when I found out she was a Jew and I killed her...

Think that would fly?

Or, she looked white, but then I found out she was a Mexican and I have a dislike of Mexicans, so I killed her.

Yeah, solid defense there.

[mkrishnan]

I panicked when I found out she was a Jew and I killed her...

I can just see Mad Jew coming after you now! You think he was mad before???? :eek: ;) :D

I too hope that this law passes and that others like it are enacted elsewhere....

[OnceUGoMac]

Panic defense? I'm more surprised that this happenned in the Bay area. I'm against hate crime laws, but a panic defense is just stupid.

[leekohler]

Anybody wanna bet the right comes after this one in full force real soon?

[solvs]

Couldn't he have just, I don't know, left? I mean, if it happened to me, I might feel a little lied to. Just be honest with me, and if I'm not cool with it, there's your answer. Believe it or not, some men are kinda grossed out by being intimate with another dude. ;) Even a hot one. But I highly doubt I'd be angry enough to want to kill someone over it. It's really not that big of a deal. I actually kinda think it would be a little funny.

"Is that a rabbit in your pocket, or are you just excited to see me?" :p

[solvs]

Anybody wanna bet the right comes after this one in full force real soon?
Oh, and I doubt they'd want to touch this one with a ten foot pole.

(what? everyone else gets to make lame puns)

[aquajet]

Anybody wanna bet the right comes after this one in full force real soon?

Yeah, that we're out to get our special rights again. Oh, wait....

[pseudobrit]

I'm against hate crime laws

May I ask why?

[Lazyhound]

May I ask why?
I'm going to guess that it's because all crimes are "hate crimes".

[Thanatoast]

I can't speak for OnceUGoMac, but I would rather the "hate" portion of the crime be taken into consideration at sentencing. Try the moron for murder, then let the judge take the fact that the cause is violent homophobia into consideration at the sentencing hearing. We write sentencing guidelines for other crimes, why not hate crimes? (Or is this how it already works?)

Regardless, it would help keep the fundies from being upset by not giving "preferential treatment" to "perverted" victims, while keeping the nature of the crime in mind.

I guess that it really *is* illegal to be stupid. (Not painful yet, but genetic manipulation is advancing by leaps and bounds :eek: )

Of course, this would involve (gasp!) actually giving judges leeway to do their jobs! It would be tantamount to judicial activism! Forcing them to use their (dare I say it) judgement in order to render a verdict appropriate to the crime. And since we all know that the judiciary is subordinate to the legislative, the executive, the janitorial and the fungal branches of government, this would immediately be opposed as a solution, if it isn't already.

[OnceUGoMac]

May I ask why?

Sure. I feel that it is superfluous legistlation. For example: I murder a gay man. I should be punished for mudering a man, not a gay man. Otherwise, I'm being charged for a motive. The crime was murder, not hating gays. That said, I support gay rights. However, I don't see hate crime legislation as helpful to that cause.

I'm going to guess that it's because all crimes are "hate crimes".

Not all crimes are motivated by hatred, but murder certainly is.

[aquajet]

Sure. I feel that it is superfluous legistlation. For example: I murder a gay man. I should be punished for mudering a man, not a gay man. Otherwise, I'm being charged for a motive. The crime was murder, not hating gays. That said, I support gay rights. However, I don't see hate crime legislation as helpful to that cause.

I agree with this. If I were brutally murdered, I wouldn't want special consideration applied to the case because the murderer thought I was "a filthy ****** that deserved what I got." A murder is a murder, no matter what motivated the perpetrator.

[zimv20]

i hope we're not getting hung up on the label "hate". it is, after all, just a name.

what we should be concerned about in any violent crime is motive. if we are able to identify motives which involve perceptions on the part of the perpetrator, then society can use that information to its advantage. targetted groups can be warned / informed, enabling them to take precautionary measure. education campaigns can be waged, etc.

i don't understand why we would want to not take motive into account. whether such motives should cause extra sentencing can be a separate discussion, but i'm bothered by the idea that motive should be ignored.

[OnceUGoMac]

i hope we're not getting hung up on the label "hate". it is, after all, just a name.

what we should be concerned about in any violent crime is motive. if we are able to identify motives which involve perceptions on the part of the perpetrator, then society can use that information to its advantage. targetted groups can be warned / informed, enabling them to take precautionary measure. education campaigns can be waged, etc.

i don't understand why we would want to not take motive into account. whether such motives should cause extra sentencing can be a separate discussion, but i'm bothered by the idea that motive should be ignored.

Motives aren't ignored. They're already taken into acoount, i.e.: first degree, second degree, etc.

Again, if I murdered a gay man and said that I murdered him because he was gay and I'd do it again, the judge and jury would know that I had no remorse for the crime. But to legislate thoughts or motives goes too far.

If a gay man murdered me, would he be charged with a hate crime? Would he get extra sentencing? You can't have one set of rules that apply for one demographic and not for another. That's discrimination.

[zimv20]

Motives aren't ignored. They're already taken into acoount, i.e.: first degree, second degree, etc.
severity and pre-planning are taken into account, but does that really speak to motive?


Again, if I murdered a gay man and said that I murdered him because he was gay and I'd do it again, the judge and jury would know that I had no remorse for the crime. But to legislate thoughts or motives goes too far.
no one's suggesting that thoughts are being legislated here. we're quite used to legislating behavior, though, and prone to using legislation and punishment to discourage it.


If a gay man murdered me, would he be charged with a hate crime? Would he get extra sentencing? You can't have one set of rules that apply for one demographic and not for another. That's discrimination.
is it? we've not talked about motive at all. in your example, what is this gay man's motive? did he commit the crime because he was gay, or in spite of it? if he killed you because you beat up his sister, is that the same motive as killing you for no other reason than he doesn't like your lifestyle?

i say no, and as, say, a jurist, i'd want to know. as i said above, we seem to be mixing up the idea between extra sentencing and understanding crime. let's not do that. if a deeper understanding of motive can help the police to do their job, is that not a noble goal?

[OnceUGoMac]

if he killed you because you beat up his sister, is that the same motive as killing you for no other reason than he doesn't like your lifestyle?

You proved my point. He committed a crime regardless of his motives. He'll already be charged with murder.

as i said above, we seem to be mixing up the idea between extra sentencing and understanding crime. let's not do that. if a deeper understanding of motive can help the police to do their job, is that not a noble goal?

I wasn't arguing about understanding the motive, I was arguing the legislation of motives.

Another example: If I raped a woman, would I be charged with rape and for committing a hate crime? Misogyny isn't a crime. Then, why should one be penalized for it?

[zimv20]

You proved my point. He committed a crime regardless of his motives. He'll already be charged with murder.

sorry, i don't feel i proved your point with my hypothetical scenario.

here's the bottom line: it is up to the prosecution to prove the crime was committed or made worse because of some kind of non-personal bias. you say that "it would happen anyway," but that's not true. i've seen a gang of sailors, in chicago, going around looking for "fags to kick the **** out of." how shall we classify that? what should we do with a lynch mod that seeks out a black on whom to take out their frustrations? or a group of kids burning down a synagogue? it makes no sense to me to ignore those kinds of motivations.

i'm not saying anything i haven't posted above. either neither of us is going to move or we're not understanding each other.

[Blackheart]

If there is a greater punishment on a hate-crime than a non-hate-crime, this implies that hating is illegal. In the US, the right to hate is protected under the first amendment.

[OnceUGoMac]

here's the bottom line: it is up to the prosecution to prove the crime was committed or made worse because of some kind of non-personal bias.

So, murder is worse when it involves the death of a minority?

you say that "it would happen anyway," but that's not true. i've seen a gang of sailors, in chicago, going around looking for "fags to kick the **** out of." how shall we classify that?

It's called assault and battery.

what should we do with a lynch mod that seeks out a black on whom to take out their frustrations?

They would be charged with assault and/or murder depending on the outcome.

or a group of kids burning down a synagogue?

They would be charged with arson and the violation of civil rights.

either neither of us is going to move or we're not understanding each other.

No, we understand each other clearly. I don't think people should be charged for thought and you do. Again, all the examples you gave already have consequences. They are already crimes. It's not the governments role to monitor people's thoughts and bigotry.

[OnceUGoMac]

If there is a greater punishment on a hate-crime than a non-hate-crime, this implies that hating is illegal. In the US, the right to hate is protected under the first amendment.

Exactly. Thanks for summing that up, Blackheart.

[pseudobrit]

Motives aren't ignored. They're already taken into acoount, i.e.: first degree, second degree, etc.

The degree of the crime is based on whether or not there is deliberation and/or intent to kill or harm. That's not motive. That's mindset.

If a gay man murdered me, would he be charged with a hate crime? Would he get extra sentencing? You can't have one set of rules that apply for one demographic and not for another. That's discrimination.

That's not discrimination, it's judgment. Why does a first-time drunk driver who kills a man get manslaughter while a guy who shoots his wife for cheating gets first degree? The victim is just as dead, right?

We as a society realise there is something more disgusting about premeditated murder, so we have laws which punish those crimes more. And we should also realise there's something disgusting about harming another human being because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, and we should punish those crimes more, too.

Someone's mindset in committing a crime is fair game for the court system to rule on, and I think people who go out fag bashing and "accidentally" kill someone deserve more than a 2nd degree murder charge.

[pseudobrit]

If there is a greater punishment on a hate-crime than a non-hate-crime, this implies that hating is illegal. In the US, the right to hate is protected under the first amendment.

Someone's mindset in regards to premeditation, sanity and deliberation are all fair game to determine degrees of a crime after someone has committed that crime.

Why is a mindset of bigotry protected from these considerations?
It's perfectly legal for me to *think* about killing someone, too.

[katchow]

Yeah, that we're out to get our special rights again. Oh, wait....

i may regret asking, but what are you getting at exactly?

[gekko513]

If a gay man murdered me, would he be charged with a hate crime? Would he get extra sentencing? You can't have one set of rules that apply for one demographic and not for another. That's discrimination.
If he murdered you only because he hates straight people, then I guess he could be charged with a hate crime.

[blackfox]

...snip... what should we do with a lynch mod that seeks...snip

Is there a particular mod you are referring to? I haven't been around too much lately - perhaps the abuse of power isn't limited to just the Administration...<insert smiley face here>

[aquajet]

i may regret asking, but what are you getting at exactly?

The view (mostly set forth by the religious right) that gay rights are nothing more than special rights.

[katchow]

The view (mostly set forth by the religious right) that gay rights are nothing more than special rights.


I'm not sure where you stand, but within the context of this thread, would throwing out the "gay panic" defense be granting special rights?

[aquajet]

Here are two hypothetical murders:

1. A gay man enters a night club and notices an attractive man sitting at the bar. The attractive man decides to leave, and the gay man follows. The gay man cruises the attractive man and the attractive man becomes uncomfortable, and after a short exchange, the attractive man proceeds to batter the gay man. The gay man dies two days later as a result of his injuries.

2. A driver attempting to merge onto the freeway cuts off another driver and clips the front bumper. Both drivers pull over, and the driver that was cut off proceeds to scream at the other because of the damage to his new Expedition. After a prolonged screaming match, the driver of the Expedition proceeds to batter the other. The battered driver dies two days later as a result of his injuries.

Both people are tried and convicted of second degree murder. Hate crime legislation requires the murderer of the gay man to be punished more severely.

Both have similarities in the circumstances leading up to the murder. Neither murder was premeditated. Both were perpetrated "in the moment" as a result of some perceived threat by the perpetrator. As Blackheart mentioned, doesn't this suggest that hatred of homosexuality is illegal? Why should murderer #1 be further punished for his hatred of homosexuals?

[aquajet]

I'm not sure where you stand, but within the context of this thread, would throwing out the "gay panic" defense be granting special rights?

No. It ensures equal rights. The "gay panic" defense grants special rights to those who murder gay people by reducing the punishment.

[Sayhey]

Panic defense? I'm more surprised that this happenned in the Bay area. I'm against hate crime laws, but a panic defense is just stupid.

Hey, we came up with the "twinkie" defense*; we're in the forefront of everything. As bad as this case is, I'm afraid that in most states the murders would have been given gold stars. Bigotry runs very deep.

* for those too young to remember, see White, Dan (http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C)

[OnceUGoMac]

Hey, we came up with the "twinkie" defense*; we're in the forefront of everything.[/URL]

Yeah, I was thinking about that. :D

As bad as this case is, I'm afraid that in most states the murders would have been given gold stars.

That's an offensive blanket statement. Can you provide any evidence to this claim that most states support murder?

[takao]

Hey, we came up with the "twinkie" defense*; we're in the forefront of everything. As bad as this case is, I'm afraid that in most states the murders would have been given gold stars. Bigotry runs very deep.

* for those too young to remember, see White, Dan (http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2177&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C)

omg ... that's just wrong

[Sayhey]

That's an offensive blanket statement. Can you provide any evidence to this claim that most states support murder?

I didn't say most states support murder. I said in most states the murders, or murderers if you will, would have been given a gold star. While the "gold star" is admittedly a metaphor, it is an appropriate and specific reference to the growing violence (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=149) against the transgendered, and, at best, the lack of response from authorities (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511222005). Do you really want to debate it?

[OnceUGoMac]

I didn't say most states support murder. I said in most states the murders, or murderers if you will, would have been given a gold star. While the "gold star" is admittedly a metaphor, it is an appropriate and specific reference to the growing violence (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=149) against the transgendered, and, at best, the lack of response from authorities (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511222005). Do you really want to debate it?


I'm not sure your argument is debatable. You claim that in most states, people that kill gay/lesbian/transgendered people are awarded. Both of your links, while interesting, did nothing to support that statement. Again, where is the evidence to support this?

[Sayhey]

I'm not sure your argument is debatable. You claim that in most states, people that kill gay/lesbian/transgendered people are awarded. Both of your links, while interesting, did nothing to support that statement. Again, where is the evidence to support this?

I beginning to think you just want to start an argument. What part of "metaphor" don't you understand? I'm not really trying to say that little golden stars, or any other real awards, are given out by various states to people who murder the transgendered. Rather I'm trying to state that violence against transgendered people is not taken seriously by authorities, and (as the AI report states) in some cases is perpetrated by the police themselves. That shows an attitude of condoning such violence, hence the use of the metaphor of a gold star. Am I clear now?

[OnceUGoMac]

I beginning to think you just want to start an argument. What part of "metaphor" don't you understand? I'm not really trying to say that little golden stars, or any other real awards, are given out by various states to people who murder the transgendered. Rather I'm trying to state that violence against transgendered people is not taken seriously by authorities, and (as the AI report states) in some cases is perpetrated by the police themselves. That shows an attitude of condoning such violence, hence the use of the metaphor of a gold star. Am I clear now?

Your statement is a bit more clear, yes. However, in the AI report also states that those officers were reprimanded. Again, what States are you referring to where authorities condone violence against transgendered? To say that I want to start an argument because you made a blanket statement without backing it up is not helpful, either. If you make a blanket statement, back it up. If you can't back it up don't get mad at people that point it out.

[Blackheart]

I beginning to think you just want to start an argument. What part of "metaphor" don't you understand? I'm not really trying to say that little golden stars, or any other real awards, are given out by various states to people who murder the transgendered. Rather I'm trying to state that violence against transgendered people is not taken seriously by authorities, and (as the AI report states) in some cases is perpetrated by the police themselves. That shows an attitude of condoning such violence, hence the use of the metaphor of a gold star. Am I clear now?

However, you can't use isolated examples of radical behavior in order to make blanket generalizations about an entire group of people.

[OnceUGoMac]

However, you can't use isolated examples of radical behavior in order to make blanket generalizations about an entire group of people.


Thanks again, Blackheart. You seem to have a knack for summing up my long-winded arguments.:)

[Blackheart]

Thanks again, Blackheart. You seem to have a knack for summing up my long-winded arguments.:)

Always here to help. ;)

[Sayhey]

Your statement is a bit more clear, yes. However, in the AI report also states that those officers were reprimanded. Again, what States are you referring to where authorities condone violence against transgendered? To say that I want to start an argument because you made a blanket statement without backing it up is not helpful, either. If you make a blanket statement, back it up. If you can't back it up don't get mad at people that point it out.

I did back it up with links to reputable sources that talk about the rise in violence and the lack of response by authorities to the problem. Do you doubt the truthfulness of the stories in the articles? How about this one?

'Her Life Didn't Count'
Washington's seminal bad-cop moment happened almost exactly seven years before the double murders of Stephanie Thomas and Ukea Davis &#253; on the very same street corner where the teenagers met their deaths.
On the morning of Aug. 7, 1995, a car accident left 24-year-old passenger Tyra Hunter bleeding profusely on the corner of 50th and C. Hunter, who had been on her way to work as a hairdresser, was pulled out of the car by bystanders before firefighters and Emergency Medical Service workers arrived at the scene.

Eyewitness Catherine Poole told investigators that Hunter was conscious and "starting to complain of pain" when the rescuers arrived.

"[T]he ambulance person that was treating [Hunter] said to her that 'Everything is going to be all right, honey,'" Poole continued. "At that point, she started to urinate on herself. The ambulance person started to cut the pants legs on the jeans. ... [H]e started cutting up the leg and suddenly stopped, and jumped back when he found out that she was a man and said, 'This bitch ain't no girl ... it's a ******, he's got a dick.'"

Two other witnesses corroborated the slur, and backed Poole's assertion that the emergency service workers and firefighters stopped treating Hunter for upwards of five minutes while "laughing and telling jokes" about her.

Two hours later, Hunter died of blunt trauma at D.C. General Hospital &#253; after also being denied treatment by a doctor. No firefighters, emergency or hospital personnel were disciplined, and the city refused to take responsibility for the death, saying that Hunter was too seriously injured to survive.

But when Hunter's mother sued the city, a jury found that Hunter's civil rights had been violated at the accident scene, and that her death had likely been caused by medical negligence. (Experts testified that with proper treatment, she had an 86% chance of surviving.)

After the jury awarded Margie Hunter $2.9 million in damages, the city further alienated its transgendered residents by appealing the decision &#253; ultimately agreeing to a $1.75 million settlement.

The message of Hunter's mistreatment was clear, wrote local activist Richard Rosendall: "She was transgender, and her life didn't count."

Transgender activists say law enforcement personnel have been sending that message for years. When she was a youngster on the streets, says Toni Collins, "You'd be surprised how many policemen I had sex with. They'd say, 'You do it with me, or I'm going to arrest you for prostitution.' Then they'd tell me to go home and I better not tell anybody."

She did as ordered. "Who would you tell?" she asks.

Sgt. Brett Parson, the GLLU chief, acknowledges the "violent history" between transgendered people and law enforcement. But he doesn't agree that police are more biased against sexual and gender minorities than the average population.

Nor does Gary Shapiro, a hate crime expert with New York's Nassau County Police Department. "More and more, every day, there's pressure on officers to be knowledgeable and sensitive &#253; to racial differences, language differences, sexual differences," Shapiro says.

Still, he acknowledges that the transgender community's perception of cops as enemies is "understandable. Especially in that area, we've still got a long way to go."

Parson knows it's a long haul. His unit has won the trust of Washington's transgender activists, but it's a tougher challenge on 5th and K.

"I talked to a transgender girl last night and she says, 'By the way, where were you last week when I got beat up?' I said, 'I don't know &#253; but why didn't you call me?' She said, 'Why would I call you guys? You're not going to do anything.'

"I haven't gotten through to her yet that we will do something. Then a lot of times when someone gets killed, we'll find out they've been assaulted a lot."

It's always possible that the killers were among those who'd been committing assaults. But as long as the assaults go unreported &#253; as long as transgendered women feel like they can't trust the cops &#253; there's no way of knowing whether lives like Emonie Spaulding's or Bella Evangelista's might have been spared. SPLC (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=278)

If you don't want to read or understand, just say so, but don't waste my time with silly debates about the use of metaphors. If you actually want to find out about this violence here (http://www.avp.org/) and here (http://www.ncavp.org/) are other good sources.

[OnceUGoMac]

If you don't want to read or understand, just say so, but don't waste my time with silly debates about the use of metaphors. If you actually want to find out about this violence here (http://www.avp.org/) is another good source.

The "silly debate" isn't about the use of metaphors. The "silly debate" is about you making a blanket statement and failing to back it up. No one's denying that these incidents happen. However, by stating that authorities in most States condone this violence is a blanket statement which you have yet to back up. Name the states that specifically condone the violence. If you can name and prove that 26 or more states condone this violence then your statement has merit.

This reminds me of the ACLU thread that was closed down. The poster claimed that the ACLU is anti-religion. He had isolated incidents to support his blanket statement, too. That didn't make his argument correct.

[leekohler]

The "silly debate" isn't about the use of metaphors. The "silly debate" is about you making a blanket statement and failing to back it up. No one's denying that these incidents happen. However, by stating that authorities in most States condone this violence is a blanket statement which you have yet to back up. Name the states that specifically condone the violence. If you can name and prove that 26 or more states condone this violence then your statement has merit.

This reminds me of the ACLU thread that was closed down. The poster claimed that the ACLU is anti-religion. He had isolated incidents to support his blanket statement, too. That didn't make his argument correct.

Are you trying to say that Sayhey meant that this violence is codified by states? I don't think that's what was said. I certainly didn't get that. And I think it would be difficult to get adequate info due to the fact that these incidents with authorities are most likely not reported. What would you do if even the police failed to protect you? Who would you tell?

[Sayhey]

The "silly debate" isn't about the use of metaphors. The "silly debate" is about you making a blanket statement and failing to back it up. No one's denying that these incidents happen. However, by stating that authorities in most States condone this violence is a blanket statement which you have yet to back up. Name the states that specifically condone the violence. If you can name and prove that 26 or more states condone this violence then your statement has merit.

This reminds me of the ACLU thread that was closed down. The poster claimed that the ACLU is anti-religion. He had isolated incidents to support his blanket statement, too. That didn't make his argument correct.

Nice try, but the ACLU thread has nothing to do with this discussion. The silly part of this is when you wanted to focus on the "awards" or gold star metaphor. If you really have an interest in learning about rising violence against transgendered people (something the SPLC article backs up) or the lack of response by police to this violence (including the violence by the Police -- all of which the AI link backs up) then we can have a good discussion. Not that I can claim to be an expert. Just don't try to distort my words in order turn this into nonsense. It is a serious topic and should be treated as such.

Now, assuming we are going to deal with the topic at hand, you haven't responded yet, in a meaningful way, to the links I've given you. Do you doubt this violence exists and is a serious and growing problem? Or do you think these are just a few isolated examples of bad behavior coming from isolated and aberrant attitudes? Do you disagree with the Police officers in the SPLC post who acknowledge a violent history and that "the transgender community's perception of cops as enemies is 'understandable. Especially in that area, we've still got a long way to go.'"? Or do you think they are wrong or this is only true in New York and DC? In short, I'm willing to have a civil discussion and back up my point of widespread ignorance and condoning of violence, if you are willing to participate and discuss real issues.

Here is another link (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uslgbt/toc.htm) that, while not focusing on murders and/or the police, does provide a perspective on the widespread nature of violence toward Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.

[pseudobrit]

The "silly debate" isn't about the use of metaphors. The "silly debate" is about you making a blanket statement and failing to back it up.

You don't need to back up hyperbole; it's a literary device.

[pseudobrit]

This reminds me of the ACLU thread that was closed down. The poster claimed that the ACLU is anti-religion. He had isolated incidents to support his blanket statement, too. That didn't make his argument correct.

Just to clear this up, I saw absolutely no citation from that person that supported his statements.

Let's face it, fag bashing is the last realm of widely acceptable bigotry. Most of us, gay, straight or transgender have experienced this.
Woman-hating is still pretty big, but it's not practiced so openly or shamelessly as sexuality-based bigotry.

[pseudobrit]

Here are two hypothetical murders:

1. A gay man enters a night club and notices an attractive man sitting at the bar. The attractive man decides to leave, and the gay man follows. The gay man cruises the attractive man and the attractive man becomes uncomfortable, and after a short exchange, the attractive man proceeds to batter the gay man. The gay man dies two days later as a result of his injuries.

2. A driver attempting to merge onto the freeway cuts off another driver and clips the front bumper. Both drivers pull over, and the driver that was cut off proceeds to scream at the other because of the damage to his new Expedition. After a prolonged screaming match, the driver of the Expedition proceeds to batter the other. The battered driver dies two days later as a result of his injuries.

Both people are tried and convicted of second degree murder. Hate crime legislation requires the murderer of the gay man to be punished more severely.

Both have similarities in the circumstances leading up to the murder. Neither murder was premeditated. Both were perpetrated "in the moment" as a result of some perceived threat by the perpetrator. As Blackheart mentioned, doesn't this suggest that hatred of homosexuality is illegal? Why should murderer #1 be further punished for his hatred of homosexuals?

Murderer #1's mindset is fair game in the trial. If the court finds he carried a murderous hatred of gays in his heart that triggered his actions (which can be legally applicable as a form of premeditation), legislation supporting additional penalties should be applied.

If you want to play this game of "what if" I can give you a better one.

Murderer A finds his wife in bed with another man. He walks downstairs and gets a gun, loads it, puts it in his pocket, sits down and cools off. He forgets about the gun, walks upstairs, confronts her and has an argument. He didn't specifically plan it this way, but in the heat of the moment, he shoots her dead.

Murderer B finds his wife in bed with another man. He walks downstairs, cools down, walks back up and confronts her. They get into an argument and he hits her, she falls awkwardly and is killed.

Both have similarities in the circumstances leading up to the murder. Neither murder was truly premeditated. But Murderer A will surely get first degree while B will likely get second. Why? Is it illegal to load a gun? No. Is it illegal to want to kill your wife? No. Is it illegal to think about killing your wife? No. So A has committed no more an overt crime than B.

But because the mindset (not motive) will be judged and included in the charge, the extra step of loading a gun tips the scales of justice towards a premeditation. A murderous hatred of any group of people can similarly be included when accounting for mindset.

[mactastic]

Would it be fair to say that the people of the Bay Area are generally more supportive of the LGBT community than the nation at large?

(Note that I'm not claiming that there aren't bigots and hateful people within the Bay Area.)

[aquajet]

I disagree, pseudobrit. I understand your point regarding mindset, but I believe it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. In your example of Murderer A, the mindset that forces him to load his weapon is fundamentally different than the mindset of Murderer #1 in my example. And as such, I don't believe it's a proper comparison.

I believe that ultimately everybody who is a victim of a violent crime should be treated equally under the law. I don't believe that the parties involved in a crime should be given special consideration based upon the personal beliefs of the perpetrator.

Let me give another example based upon yours:

1. A woman returns home after work and finds her husband in bed with another woman. She loses control, runs downstairs, grabs her husband's 45, screams "you dirty slut," and kills both.

2. A woman returns home after work and finds her husband in bed with another man. She loses control, runs downstairs, grabs her husband's 45, screams "you dirty ******," and kills both.

To make things interesting -- both women are vocal opponents against the "militant homosexual agenda that is resulting in the degradation of the moral fiber in our country."

Should the law punish woman #2 more severely?

[Sayhey]

Aquajet, use any of your examples and put a badge in the possession of one of the victims and then ask yourself if society should have the ability to punish one crime differently than the other? We have different penalties in the law based on who the victims are in many, many cases. The reasoning behind hate crimes legislation is no different. The question is, do you think hate crimes have a special effect on society and therefore the broader society has a stake in the punishment such that it warrants a greater punishment. I think the answer is yes.

[aquajet]

Aquajet, use any of your examples and put a badge in the possession of one of the victims and then ask yourself if society should have the ability to punish one crime differently than the other? We have different penalties in the law based on who the victims are in many, many cases. The reasoning behind hate crimes legislation is no different. The question is, do you think hate crimes have a special effect on society and therefore the broader society has a stake in the punishment such that it warrants a greater punishment. I think the answer is yes.

I can appreciate this, Sayhey. Perhaps I'm wrong because I don't know how I would react if a hate crime was perpetrated against me or someone I love, to be frank. But as I see it now, whether somebody tracked me down and murdered me as a result of a road rage incident or because I'm gay makes no difference to me. The end result: I am dead. I can respect one's right to hate another for no other reason than who they are (which doesn't mean I wouldn't criticize one for such views, and either should society). But to punish a person further simply because of hate seems superfluous and perhaps even revengeful.

I'm curious as to what you think of this (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1). Had the law punished Henderson and McKinney more severely for their crimes, and in light of new evidence (let's give them the benefit of the doubt), would they deserve a reduction in their sentence? I would say no, because ultimately Matthew was still brutally beaten and left for dead.

[pseudobrit]

I disagree, pseudobrit. I understand your point regarding mindset, but I believe it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. In your example of Murderer A, the mindset that forces him to load his weapon is fundamentally different than the mindset of Murderer #1 in my example. And as such, I don't believe it's a proper comparison.

Having a murderous attitude toward any group of humans is tantamount to premeditation.

I believe that ultimately everybody who is a victim of a violent crime should be treated equally under the law. I don't believe that the parties involved in a crime should be given special consideration based upon the personal beliefs of the perpetrator.

You then must understand that the criminal justice system does not exist for the victims. It exists for the whole of society. That is why criminal cases are tried as The People v. ______.

Let me give another example based upon yours:

1. A woman returns home after work and finds her husband in bed with another woman. She loses control, runs downstairs, grabs her husband's 45, screams "you dirty slut," and kills both.

2. A woman returns home after work and finds her husband in bed with another man. She loses control, runs downstairs, grabs her husband's 45, screams "you dirty ******," and kills both.

To make things interesting -- both women are vocal opponents against the "militant homosexual agenda that is resulting in the degradation of the moral fiber in our country."

Should the law punish woman #2 more severely?

If a jury finds that the woman's murderous attitude toward homosexuals was the cause of her actions, I don't see why there shouldn't be laws allowing extra penalties on top of 1st degree murder.

But as I see it now, whether somebody tracked me down and murdered me as a result of a road rage incident or because I'm gay makes no difference to me.

Of course it doesn't. Nothing makes any difference to us when we're dead. We as a society set up a system to account for the living.

The end result: I am dead.

Just as dead as you would be if a drunk driver hit you.

The crime isn't treated the same just because the outcome is.

I can respect one's right to hate another for no other reason than who they are (which doesn't mean I wouldn't criticize one for such views, and either should society). But to punish a person further simply because of hate seems superfluous and perhaps even revengeful.

You think they don't already tack on extra penalties for killing children? Pregnant women? Why are prosecutors allowed to try for the death penalty when murder involves things like poisonings or lying in wait?

[aquajet]

Having a murderous attitude toward any group of humans is tantamount to premeditation.

Right, and if a murderer premeditates the murder, then special consideration should be applied.

If a jury finds that the woman's murderous attitude toward homosexuals was the cause of her actions, I don't see why there shouldn't be laws allowing extra penalties on top of 1st degree murder.

That's fine. We'll just have to disagree.

You think they don't already tack on extra penalties for killing children? Pregnant women? Why are prosecutors allowed to try for the death penalty when murder involves things like poisonings or lying in wait?

Are we tacking on additional penalties because the murderer hates pregnant women? Or is it because the murder of a pregnant woman just seems more heinous, despite any hatred?

If two pregnant women are murdered in the same manner, and it was proven that one murderer acted because he hated pregnant women, should he receive extra punishment? I assume you would say yes, and I would say no.

[zimv20]

many states have laws that increase sentences if drug dealing is done w/in a certain distance from a school, even if neither buyer nor seller are students nor affiliated with the school. the idea is to "protect the children."

are these laws a good idea or misguided?

[aquajet]

many states have laws that increase sentences if drug dealing is done w/in a certain distance from a school, even if neither buyer nor seller are students nor affiliated with the school. the idea is to "protect the children."

are these laws a good idea or misguided?

I believe these laws are a good idea. But we can't really relate this example to a hate crime, can we? Hate is protected by the Constitution. Selling drugs to children is not.

[zimv20]

I believe these laws are a good idea. But we can't really relate this example to a hate crime, can we? Hate is protected by the Constitution. Selling drugs to children is not.
i was going with the idea of "special circumstances". the drugs get sold whether it's here or there, so what's the difference? what if the dealer had half of one foot on school property, so he gets 10 years instead of 5? that's the similarity i see w/ the con argument you're making.

the interesting part (to me, anyway) is that the children in question aren't even a part of the activity.

[pseudobrit]

Are we tacking on additional penalties because the murderer hates pregnant women? Or is it because the murder of a pregnant woman just seems more heinous, despite any hatred?

Because it's more heinous and our society recognises that. Just as I think we should recognise any crime driven by bigotry as being more heinous than one driven by say, money.

If two pregnant women are murdered in the same manner, and it was proven that one murderer acted because he hated pregnant women, should he receive extra punishment? I assume you would say yes, and I would say no.

Farfetched as your scenario is, I think if someone had a predisposition towards killing prenant women and then carried through, then that person's attitude would be subject to the scope of a trial.

[aquajet]

Because it's more heinous and our society recognises that. Just as I think we should recognise any crime driven by bigotry as being more heinous than one driven by say, money.

Okay, fair enough.