Hate Crimes Expansion - Includes Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

[Eanair]

Associated Press, via Google News.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday approved the most sweeping expansion of federal hate crimes law since Congress responded four decades ago to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The legislation, backed by President Barack Obama, would extend federal protections granted under the 1968 hate crimes law to cover those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

"This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Voice vote passage came immediately after supporters cleared a 60-vote procedural hurdle imposed by Republicans trying to block consideration of the legislation. That vote was 63-28.

The hate crimes bill was offered as an amendment to a must-pass defense spending bill that the Senate is expected to finish some time next week. Several Republican amendments to the hate crimes legislation still could be considered on Monday, but Thursday's vote determined that it will be part of the defense bill when it passes.

The 1968 hate crimes act covers violence related to a person's race, color, religion or national origin. Federal involvement is confined to a narrow range of circumstances, such as when the victim is using a public facility or attending a public school, serving on a jury or participating in a government program.

The proposed legislation, in addition to expanding the categories covered, ends the "federally protected activities" requirement.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., now being treated for cancer and unable to be on hand for the debate, first proposed the bill in 1997. While coming close on several occasions, he has never been able to overcome opposition from those who contend it infringes on states' rights and First Amendment rights to free speech. Former President George W. Bush said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

This time, however, pro-bill Democrats control both houses of Congress and Obama is a strong supporter. Attorney General Eric Holder has urged Congress to give his department authority to prosecute cases of violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability.

The measure still has a way to go. Obama has told Congress he will veto the defense bill if it includes more money for an F-22 fighter program he is trying to terminate. The House in April passed a similar hate crimes bill, but did it as independent legislation not tied to a larger bill.

The Senate bill, also sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., only authorizes federal prosecutions of hate crimes when the state or local authorities are unwilling or unable to do so. It provides $5 million in grants to state and local law enforcement officials who have trouble meeting the costs of investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

Reid, D-Nev., recalled that Laramie, Wyo., was overwhelmed by the costs of pursuing the case against Matthew Shepard, the gay college student killed in 1998 whose name is attached to the bill. "When this bill becomes law, that will never happen again in Laramie, Wyo., or anyplace else in the country."

Supporters also emphasized that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

The Traditional Values Coalition had expressed concern in a letter to senators that a pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" if a sermon resulted in a person acting aggressively against someone based on sexual orientation.

Another opponent, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said it was "patently offensive" that violence against one class of victims would be considered worse than violence against others. "We cannot have a colorblind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws," he said. "It violates all the principles of equal justice under the law."

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes on their books, and about half the states have laws covering crimes based on sexual orientation.

The FBI receives reports of nearly 8,000 hate crimes every year. Of those, about 15 percent are linked to sexual orientation, which ranks third after those involving race and religion.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD99FUN7G0

There still is the snag with the F-22s though.

[thegoldenmackid]

I love how the F22 was attached to the hate crimes bill. Which is def. historic, most political analysts in November though the dems. would do healthcare and climate, but would never be able to pass a hate crime update, as sad as that sounds.

[emt1]

God I hate hate crime laws. Assault and murder are always bad, it doesn't matter why. If someone beat me up because I like boys, they should get the same punishment as they would if they were to beat me up for money.

[Badandy]

God I hate hate crime laws. Assault and murder are always bad, it doesn't matter why. If someone beat me up because I like boys, they should get the same punishment as they would if they were to beat me up for money.

Agreed, I think distinguishing between hate crimes and normal crimes (for anything other than record keeping and statistical analysis) are discriminatory, especially for sentencing purposes. I understand the intent, but I still don't think it's right.

[Ugg]

Agreed, I think distinguishing between hate crimes and normal crimes (for anything other than record keeping and statistical analysis) are discriminatory, especially for sentencing purposes. I understand the intent, but I still don't think it's right.

So you're implying the civil rights movement wasn't necessary and that the 13th amendment was sufficient in and of itself? Do you think that post Civil War, miscegnation laws and poll taxes were justified?

Sometimes in order to right historical wrongs, the law needs to come down harder on those who refuse to recognize amendments and basic human rights. I would like to see them sunsetted but those who hate and discriminate are with us for the long run.

[MacNut]

So you're implying the civil rights movement wasn't necessary and that the 13th amendment was sufficient in and of itself? Do you think that post Civil War, miscegnation laws and poll taxes were justified?

Sometimes in order to right historical wrongs, the law needs to come down harder on those who refuse to recognize amendments and basic human rights. I would like to see them sunsetted but those who hate and discriminate are with us for the long run.Why does it need to be labeled a hate crime. It should all be under the same umbrella as a crime in general. If a straight white dude beats up another straight white dude for no reason is that a hate crime? Why not just prosecute all crime equally with the same punishment.

[emt1]

So you're implying the civil rights movement wasn't necessary and that the 13th amendment was sufficient in and of itself? Do you think that post Civil War, miscegnation laws and poll taxes were justified?

Sometimes in order to right historical wrongs, the law needs to come down harder on those who refuse to recognize amendments and basic human rights. I would like to see them sunsetted but those who hate and discriminate are with us for the long run.

Laws should not be created to overcompensate for the mistakes of the past. All people are entitled to EQUAL protection under the law. It should not be a worse crime to kill someone for being gay than than to kill someone for their car.

[Rodimus Prime]

About damn time is what I have to say.

My worry is some people will scream hate crimes and tried to be punish for hate crimes when it was not hate crime.

For example lets say some one mugs and kills a guy for his money. This guy just happens to be gay I could see some people screaming hate crime. When it was just about the money. While that example seems far fetch it some things would start blurring the lines and it would be harder. I worry they might error on the side of hate crime instead of just a normal version of said crime. Personally in hate crimes because it is so much harsher of a punishment they should error on the non hate crime side that hate crime.

[emt1]

About damn time is what I have to say.

My worry is some people will scream hate crimes and tried to be punish for hate crimes when it was not hate crime.

For example lets say some one mugs and kills a guy for his money. This guy just happens to be gay I could see some people screaming hate crime. When it was just about the money. While that example seems far fetch it some things would start blurring the lines and it would be harder. I worry they might error on the side of hate crime instead of just a normal version of said crime. Personally in hate crimes because it is so much harsher of a punishment they should error on the non hate crime side that hate crime.

So you aren't necessarily arguing against hate crimes, you just don't want someone erroneously convicted of a hate crime.

[leekohler]

Laws should not be created to overcompensate for the mistakes of the past. All people are entitled to EQUAL protection under the law. It should not be a worse crime to kill someone for being gay than than to kill someone for their car.

I would normally agree with you. But I think a lot of you are missing the point. The problem is, and we just saw this happen in Ft Worth a few weeks ago, that perpetrators use things such as "gay panic" as a defense for murder. This defense is still being used and has let people get away with it. Therefore, we need laws like this. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.

In 2009 Joseph Biedermann successfully asserted Terrance Hauser had made a sexual advance against him and was acquitted of murder. Biedermann stabbed Hauser 61 times then went to his girlfriend's apartment, showered, went to the hospital whereupon she called the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

These laws put an end to that defense once and for all.

[Rodimus Prime]

So you aren't necessarily arguing against hate crimes, you just don't want someone erroneously convicted of a hate crime.

exactly.

I am seen a few to many times some one get charge with a hate crime and it not be one.
The problem with the law while good is politics and the media will get involved and try to make a bigger case for a hate crime when it is not one.


An example closer and where the lines get blurred is take for example a cops beat the crap out of a guy who was running from police and almost hit someone. If it was a African American people would scream hate crime. In my book it is excessive force and yes the action is wrong but it does not cross the line into hate crime. The public, and media would scream hate crime but it is not one.

To me a hate crime is premeditated and plan out to a point. The Ft Worth case while very wrong, I would not say is a hate crime and extreme excessive force and at worse manslaughter.

[leekohler]

To me a hate crime is premeditated and plan out to a point. The Ft Worth case while very wrong, I would not say is a hate crime and extreme excessive force and at worse manslaughter.

The cop is using "gay panic" as his defense. That the cop was freaked out by gay people should have no bearing on the crime. First, you're saying that all crimes should be treated the same, but now you're not. No one should EVER be able to use their fear or hatred of someone else as a defense for murder. That's why these laws are unfortunately necessary.

[nuckinfutz]

Well I guess my days of beating up Trannys is coming to an end ;)


Hate Crime legislation is "stooooopid"

Most violent crimes stem from hate. It's the base emotional context for the crime. This of course excludes robberies that end up becoming violent.

[iGary]

What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Assault, murder, etc. are all already illegal. Who cares why?

[leekohler]

What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Assault, murder, etc. are all already illegal. Who cares why?

Unless someone decides to use the gay panic defense. Then murder, assault etc. end up being just fine in way too many cases.

[MacNut]

The cop is using "gay panic" as his defense. That the cop was freaked out by gay people should have no bearing on the crime. First, you're saying that all crimes should be treated the same, but now you're not. No one should EVER be able to use their fear or hatred of someone else as a defense for murder.That shouldn't even be allowed as a defense, either a cop went over the line or he didn't. It should not matter if a person is gay straight black or white. If someone harms another person for no reason other then that he felt like it it should be a harsh crime. If undue force was used call it a hate crime regardless of the victims gender.

[rdowns]

Unless someone decides to use the gay panic defense. Then murder, assault etc. end up being just fine in way too many cases.

I have never heard of that until today. Is it really that common?

I don't like hate crimes laws. Crimes are crimes, period.

[ucfgrad93]

God I hate hate crime laws. Assault and murder are always bad, it doesn't matter why. If someone beat me up because I like boys, they should get the same punishment as they would if they were to beat me up for money.

Agreed. I don't think that hate crime laws should exist.

[leekohler]

That shouldn't even be allowed as a defense, either a cop went over the line or he didn't. It should not matter if a person is gay straight black or white. If someone harms another person for no reason other then that he felt like it it should be a harsh crime. If undue force was used call it a hate crime regardless of the victims gender.

Unfortunately, "should'a, would'a, could'a" isn't reality. Do you guys really think people pushed for this just for fun?

I have never heard of that until today. Is it really that common?

Yep. It used to happen a lot back in the 80's. A lesbian friend of mine was gang-raped because she was a lesbian. She pressed charges. The cops told her she should have laid back and enjoyed it. The case went nowhere legally, but the guys at least got kicked out of school.

[Rodimus Prime]

The cop is using "gay panic" as his defense. That the cop was freaked out by gay people should have no bearing on the crime. First, you're saying that all crimes should be treated the same, but now you're not. No one should EVER be able to use their fear or hatred of someone else as a defense for murder. That's why these laws are unfortunately necessary.

No I did not say it should be used as an excuse for murder. What I did say was it should not be classified as a hate crime. That is 2 very different cases.

I classifid hate crimes very differently than normal crimes. The forth worth case I would put under the cloud as normal and not hate.
"gay panic" defense should be allowed only the the part of keeping it from being classified as a hate crime. From that point on it is treated like a normal crime and "gay panic" would have no baring on if it was manslaughter or assault and so on.

The beating the crap out of the guy for the cop should be treated as if he did it to a normal straight person.

[leekohler]

The forth worth case I would put under the cloud as normal and not hate.

The Fort Worth case is the very definition of "hate crime".

[Rodimus Prime]

The Fort Worth case is the very definition of "hate crime".

And that is my case and point of a case that would be move into hate crime for political reasons.
Hate crimes to me are premeditated.
This is another debate but I am going to go with the assumption that he was touch so he reacted. But it would fall underbrela as a hate crime

My view is because of how much harsher a hate crime punishment is the error should always be on the side of it not being a hate crime and in the Ft Worth case the lines are blurred and as such it should be error on the side of it not being a hate crime

[leekohler]

And that is my case and point of a case that would be move into hate crime for political reasons.
Hate crimes to me are premeditated.

So, you think "gay panic" is an acceptable defense because it's not premeditated and doesn't involve prejudice, fear and hate?

[MacNut]

Unfortunately, "should'a, would'a, could'a" isn't reality. Do you guys really think people pushed for this just for fun?



Yep. It used to happen a lot back in the 80's. A lesbian friend of mine was gang-raped because she was a lesbian. She pressed charges. The cops told her she should have laid back and enjoyed it. The case went nowhere legally, but the guys at least got kicked out of school.It should not make a difference if she was a lesbian or a straight woman. Gang rape is gang rape and should be treated as such.

The law should not know gender or race, it should treat a serious crime as such and not choose the penalty.

[leekohler]

It should not make a difference if she was a lesbian or a straight woman. Gang rape is gang rape and should be treated as such.

But it wasn't. Many other crimes against gay people aren't either, or the sentences are reduced because people use this defense. Like I said, I wish hate crimes laws weren't necessary too. Unfortunately, they are.

[Rodimus Prime]

So, you think "gay panic" is an acceptable defense because it's not premeditated and doesn't involve prejudice, fear and hate?

No what I am saying is going to assume that he was touch (until there is video evidence proving otherwise) so he reacted to far. It had an event that set it off and because was a crime in the heat of the moment it changes the rules and should not be treated as a hate crime. Heat of the moment type of crimes in my book should not be treated as a hate crime.

and as such instead of being tried as a hate crime it gets treated as a "normal crime" so to speak which carries a lesser charge.

[MacNut]

and as such instead of being tried as a hate crime it gets treated as a "normal crime" so to speak which carries a lesser charge.There should not be a lesser crime, treat all crime the same.

If you stab me because Im gay vs because Im straight should have the same penalty. The fact is you stabbed me.

[leekohler]

There should not be a lesser crime, treat all crime the same.

If you stab me because Im gay vs because Im straight should have the same penalty. The fact is you stabbed me.

Like I said- in a perfect world, that's what would happen. It doesn't though.

[Rodimus Prime]

There should not be a lesser crime, treat all crime the same.

If you stab me because Im gay vs because Im straight should have the same penalty. The fact is you stabbed me.

Well that is the difference. If a man had for example gone out with the plan to stab gay man because he hates gays then it is a hate crime.

It was premeditated to do as such.

Another example of hate crimes that I have seen is some people went cross burning in front of an African Americans house. That is a hate crime.

[MacNut]

Like I said- in a perfect world, that's what would happen. It doesn't though.Well than that is that is the problem of the people enforcing the laws.

[MacNut]

Well that is the difference. If a man had for example gone out with the plan to stab gay man because he hates gays then it is a hate crime.But why should that bear any more a penalty from a guy that stabs a person because he was cheating on his wife. They are both crimes of hate and the end result is the same.

[leekohler]

Well than that is that is the problem of the people enforcing the laws.

No- it's a problem for the victims.

[MacNut]

No- it's a problem for the victims.If every crime was treated equal there would be no need for hate crime laws. The well he was gay excuse should not be allowed. The fact is you caused harm to another person.

A person being beat up over expensive sneakers vs a person being beat up for being gay should have the same penalty.

[leekohler]

If every crime was treated equal there would be no need for hate crime laws. The well he was gay excuse should not be allowed. The fact is you caused harm to another person.

A person being beat up over expensive sneakers vs a person being beat up for being gay should have the same penalty.

"Should" being the key word.

But this defense is used, Macnut- and quite successfully. I linked to an article before about how it just happened this year. The guy got away with murder because he used that defense.

Again-"should", "would" and "could" are not reality. No one would be happier than I to never need hate crimes laws.

[MacNut]

"Should" being the key word.

But this defense is used, Macnut- and quite successfully. I linked to an article before about how it just happened this year. The guy got away with murder because he used that defense.

Again-"should", "would" and "could" are not reality. No one would be happier than I to never need hate crimes laws.The problem is why allow that defense in the first place. The court should not even allow it. Maybe that is where the law needs to be changed.

[leekohler]

The problem is why allow that defense in the first place. The court should not even allow it. Maybe that is where the law needs to be changed.

There is plenty of prejudice left in this country. As long as it's there, courts will allow that defense to be used. This is a good way to put a stop to it. Hopefully someday, we don't need these laws anymore.

[mgguy]

Would premeditation have to be proven for conviction of a hate crime? If I am attacked by someone of a different race, gender, or sexual orientation from me and they are pissed and call me a racial slur like cracker or white trash, would they be prosecuted under this legislation? If so, that doesn't seem right.

[kavika411]

But this defense is used, Macnut- and quite successfully. I linked to an article before about how it just happened this year. The guy got away with murder because he used that defense.

I just read your wikipedia link. Good lord. I'd never heard of that before. I guess the "gay panic" defense would be funny if it hadn't apparently been used successfully.

That said, my understanding of this thread is that we are talking about changing law on a federal level. In that regard, I would prefer that if we are in the business of changing law, as is the topic of this thread, we simply pass a law disposing of the "gay panic" defense. That can be legislated federally and applied on the state and local level.

When this topic has arisen in other threads, the point has been made that hate crime legislation has been passed largely (if not almost exclusively) for the purpose of balancing - on a federal level - what the state/county/city level sometimes fail to do - prosecute crimes against gays, minorities, etc. I agree that there are crimes committed against protected classes that are treated differently because of the victim's race, etc. That is intollerable and inexcusable. I do not believe, however, that the way you make this situation right is to (1) ask a jury to ascertain the internal frame of mind of the suspect at the time of the assault and, assuming they find the suspect had an unusual amount of anger toward's the victim's race, gender, etc., (2) allow for additional punishment for the crime.

First, like it or not, hate crimes criminalize thoughts. That's dangerous for everyone. Second, it inures great anger from victims of non-hate crimes when they realize there was more punishment on the table to be levied against their attacker if only their attacker - in the opinion of a jury - had a certain train of thought at the time of the attack as opposed to another. That's bad public policy.

In lieu of hate crime legislation, I would support legislation targeting law enforcement that selectively prosecutes to the detriment of protected class victims. Whether that legislation be in the form of a federal oversight department that has the tools to go after law enforcement (sort of an internal affairs group on a federal scale focused on this issue only), or legislation that somehow criminalizes such selective prosecution, or a combination of both. In other words, if the problem is indeed with the failure of local law enforcement to go after attackers of protected classes, then by god pass legislation to criminalize that behavior.

[leekohler]

I just read your wikipedia link. Good lord. I'd never heard of that before. I guess the "gay panic" defense would be funny if it hadn't apparently been used successfully.

That said, my understanding of this thread is that we are talking about changing law on a federal level. In that regard, I would prefer that if we are in the business of changing law, as is the topic of this thread, we simply pass a law disposing of the "gay panic" defense. That can be legislated federally and applied on the state and local level.

When this topic has arisen in other threads, the point has been made that hate crime legislation has been passed largely (if not almost exclusively) for the purpose of balancing - on a federal level - what the state/county/city level sometimes fail to do - prosecute crimes against gays, minorities, etc. I agree that there are crimes committed against protected classes that are treated differently because of the victim's race, etc. That is intollerable and inexcusable. I do not believe, however, that the way you make this situation right is to (1) ask a jury to ascertain the internal frame of mind of the suspect at the time of the assault and, assuming they find the suspect had an unusual amount of anger toward's the victim's race, gender, etc., (2) allow for additional punishment for the crime.

First, like it or not, hate crimes criminalize thoughts. That's dangerous for everyone. Second, it inures great anger from victims of non-hate crimes when they realize there was more punishment on the table to be levied against their attacker if only their attacker - in the opinion of a jury - had a certain train of thought at the time of the attack as opposed to another. That's bad public policy.

In lieu of hate crime legislation, I would support legislation targeting law enforcement that selectively prosecutes to the detriment of protected class victims. Whether that legislation be in the form of a federal oversight department that has the tools to go after law enforcement (sort of an internal affairs group on a federal scale focused on this issue only), or legislation that somehow criminalizes such selective prosecution, or a combination of both. In other words, if the problem is indeed with the failure of local law enforcement to go after attackers of protected classes, then by god pass legislation to criminalize that behavior.

Hate crimes laws don't criminalize thoughts. People can think whatever they want. It's acting on those thoughts that is considered criminal.

[Gelfin]

Hate crimes to me are premeditated.

I don't understand why you think this. It seems entirely arbitrary.

Sure, there are unambiguous premeditated hate crimes. Lighting a cross on somebody's lawn is clearly a premeditated act of hatred, the offense of which is hardly covered by mere trespassing and vandalism charges.

On the other hand, if you walk into "the wrong bar," the drunk a**hole who kicks six kinds of crap out of you so you know "your kind" isn't wanted around there wasn't lying in wait for the day when you would walk in. It wasn't premeditated, but it was a crime motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of people like you and for no other reason.

Such behavior is, and has been, so common against certain groups that members of those groups can feel like they're walking through a minefield just interacting normally in society. They don't have to do anything but exist to offend certain people, they can't always know who until it's too late, and then the law has an embarrassingly long history of looking the other way that makes would-be perpetrators feel more confident.

Like any security problem, if you've got a more attractive or susceptible target, then you discourage attacks by raising the cost of attacking.

Recognizing discriminatory hatred as an aggravating circumstance is not criminalizing what people think, but how they choose to act upon what they think. Hate people all you want, but don't make the mistake of thinking we'll tolerate people acting on their hate so as to make society unsafe for certain groups to just live in peacefully.

[emt1]

Since when did hate crime laws prevent the use of a gay panic defense?

[leekohler]

Since when did hate crime laws prevent the use of a gay panic defense?

It would be pretty stupid to try to use that under this law. It would become a liability, not a defense. You'd be admitting homophobia.

[Rodimus Prime]

The problem is why allow that defense in the first place. The court should not even allow it. Maybe that is where the law needs to be changed.

I think where leekohler and I are disagree is far as I understand it he is claim the "gay panic" is getting him off the hook for the crime.

For me the use of "Gay panic" excuse prevents it from being a hate crime and moves it to a crime of passion. Kind of like killing your wife while she is in bed with another man.

As for a charging all it does is prevent it from being a hate crime. After that the "gay panic" excuse is no longer valid for anything. So it means manslaughter.

I am not saying gay panic lets any one off the hook. Just prevents hate crime

[MacNut]

Hate crimes laws don't criminalize thoughts. People can think whatever they want. It's acting on those thoughts that is considered criminal.How do you determine a hate crime. Lets say a gay person is attacked randomly and the attacker doesn't know the person is gay. Would the hate crime law be in effect if it is a random act?

[emt1]

How do you determine a hate crime. Lets say a gay person is attacked randomly and the attacker doesn't know the person is gay. Would the hate crime law be in effect if it is a random act?

No it wouldn't be in effect in that case. That's one of the reasons why hate crime laws are so stupid.

[leekohler]

How do you determine a hate crime. Lets say a gay person is attacked randomly and the attacker doesn't know the person is gay. Would the hate crime law be in effect if it is a random act?

Of course not. You'd have to be able to show it was a hate crime. For instance- someone who kills another person who's Jewish carves a swastika in their forehead. Pretty clear, wouldn't you say? There are plenty of other ways too.

[leekohler]

I think where leekohler and I are disagree is far as I understand it he is claim the "gay panic" is getting him off the hook for the crime.

For me the use of "Gay panic" excuse prevents it from being a hate crime and moves it to a crime of passion. Kind of like killing your wife while she is in bed with another man.

As for a charging all it does is prevent it from being a hate crime. After that the "gay panic" excuse is no longer valid for anything. So it means manslaughter.

I am not saying gay panic lets any one off the hook. Just prevents hate crime

Gay panic has let people off the hook. It's been quite effective.

[emt1]

Of course not. You'd have to be able to show it was a hate crime. For instance- someone who kills another person who's Jewish carves a swastika in their forehead. Pretty clear, wouldn't you say? There are plenty of other ways too.

Okay, that is just so, so stupid. Who cares why? It doesn't not make the crime worse because the murderer hated Jews. It is just as bad as any other unjustified murder.

[NT1440]

No it wouldn't be in effect in that case. That's one of the reasons why hate crime laws are so stupid.

How is that a reason if hate crime laws wouldn't play a part in that case at all?:confused:

[leekohler]

Okay, that is just so, so stupid. Who cares why? It doesn't not make the crime worse because the murderer hated Jews. It is just as bad as any other unjustified murder.

"Why" is always important. "Why" and "how" determine the severity of the sentence. Of course "why" matters.

[emt1]

How is that a reason if hate crime laws wouldn't play a part in that case at all?:confused:

It's stupid because if prosecutors prove that the murderer knew he was gay, and that is why he killed him, then he could get a longer sentence. It is the same crime.

[emt1]

"Why" is always important. "Why" and "how" determine the severity of the sentence. Of course "why" matters.

Take two completely unjustifiable murders. If one was because the victim was gay, and the other was not, I don't see any reason why the murderer of the gay should receive a harsher sentence.

[Gelfin]

It's stupid because if prosecutors prove that the murderer knew he was gay, and that is why he killed him, then he could get a longer sentence. It is the same crime.

Is it stupid for someone with a history of similar offenses to receive a longer sentence than a first-time offender? It's the same crime.

[leekohler]

Take two completely unjustifiable murders. If one was because the victim was gay, and the other was not, I don't see any reason why the murderer of the gay should receive a harsher sentence.

I do. Homophobia is a terrible social ill. If someone kills someone else because they are gay, jewish, black, whatever- we should punish that severely. For example, would you punish someone who lynched a black person more severely than someone who killed someone (not with the original intent to, but it became necessary in their mind) during a robbery? Or are those the same thing to you?

[emt1]

Is it stupid for someone with a history of similar offenses to receive a longer sentence than a first-time offender? It's the same crime.

Yes, that is also stupid. For example, drunken driving. In my state, your first arrest can result in no jail time, but your 10th could result in around a decade in prison.

[emt1]

I do. Homophobia is a terrible social ill. If someone kills someone else because they are gay, jewish, black, whatever- we should punish that severely. For example, you wouldn't punish someone who lynched a black person more severely than someone who killed someone (not with the original intent to, but it became necessary in their mind) during a robbery?

Murder is a terrible social ill. In this country we do not punish thoughts, we punish actions. If you kill someone, you should be punished for that, not what you were thinking while you did it.

[leekohler]

Yes, that is also stupid. For example, drunken driving. In my state, your first arrest can result in no jail time, but your 10th could result in around a decade in prison.

So which is it? A decade in prison, or no jail time?

[emt1]

So which is it? A decade in prison, or no jail time?

I don't know. All I know is that I don't like the thought of progressive punishment.

[leekohler]

Murder is a terrible social ill. In this country we do not punish thoughts, we punish actions. If you kill someone, you should be punished for that, not what you were thinking while you did it.

What someone was thinking is always part of how a sentence is meted out. And yes, we most certainly do punish people for "why" they did something. We always have.

Charles Manson killed no one. He told others to do it for him. He's still in prison for life. All he did was have an idea, and tell others to do it. He was punished more severely than the people who actually committed the crimes.

[emt1]

What someone was thinking is always part of how a sentence is meted out. And yes, we most certainly do punish people for "why" they did something. We always have.

Obviously people can receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating factors, but I don't think that hating the group that the victim belonged to should be an aggravating factor. It just doesn't make sense. What does it do to help society? If someone kills someone because they have red hair, and they hate people who have red hair, should they receive a harsher sentence? How do we decide what groups are worth "protecting" with hate crime laws?

[leekohler]

Obviously people can receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating factors, but I don't think that hating the group that the victim belonged to should be an aggravating factor. It just doesn't make sense. What does it do to help society? If someone kills someone because they have red hair, and they hate people who have red hair, should they receive a harsher sentence? How do we decide what groups are worth "protecting" with hate crime laws?

My bold. There's where we disagree. People have been using fear and hatred of gays as a mitigating factor to get lighter sentences for a very long time. We are arguing that just the opposite should be the case.

What does it do to help society? It gets these kinds of people off the street for a very long time.

[emt1]

My bold. There's where we disagree. People have been using fear and hatred of gays as a mitigating factor to get lighter sentences for a very long time. We are arguing that just the opposite should be the case.

What does it do to help society? It gets these kinds of people off the street for a very long time.

Gay panic defenses should not be allowed, but killing someone because they are gay should not result in a harsher sentence.

Regardless, murderers should be put away for life, and people who commit violent crimes should be put away for a long, long time. There shouldn't have to be a hate crime law to ensure this happens.

[leekohler]

Gay panic defenses should not be allowed, but killing someone because they are gay should not result in a harsher sentence.

Regardless, murderers should be put away for life, and people who commit violent crimes should be put away for a long, long time. There shouldn't have to be a hate crime law to ensure this happens.

Like I said before many, many times- I wish they weren't necessary. Unfortunately, they are.

[emt1]

Like I said before many, many times- I wish they weren't necessary. Unfortunately, they are.

I disagree. I know almost nothing about law, but there has to be a better way. Hate crime laws are unfair, and an unacceptable solution to the problem.

[leekohler]

I disagree. I know almost nothing about law, but there has to be a better way. Hate crime laws are unfair, and an unacceptable solution to the problem.

When you figure it out, let us all know. I've seen justice denied to too many people.

[Gelfin]

I don't know. All I know is that I don't like the thought of progressive punishment.

Presumably you also think juveniles should always be tried and sentenced as adults then, correct?

[Zombie Acorn]

I do. Homophobia is a terrible social ill. If someone kills someone else because they are gay, jewish, black, whatever- we should punish that severely. For example, would you punish someone who lynched a black person more severely than someone who killed someone (not with the original intent to, but it became necessary in their mind) during a robbery? Or are those the same thing to you?

Both are the same to me, you took a life and should serve your life in prison and/or be executed.

[leekohler]

Both are the same to me, you took a life and should serve your life in prison and/or be executed.

Then why is it that it so often doesn't happen?

[Zombie Acorn]

Then why is it that it so often doesn't happen?

Our country doesn't have a sense of justice anymore? I don't know. I personally don't understand how we allow murderers back into the populace at all. As far as I am concerned as soon as you murder another citizen maliciously you shouldn't be considered a US citizen anymore. I don't feel sorry for 80+ year olds serving their terms out, they are serving their life in the **** for the life they took, someone else doesn't get to be 80 and have grandkids because of them.

[Tomorrow]

If someone kills someone else because they are gay, jewish, black, whatever- we should punish that just as severely.

Yes, and if someone kills someone else because that person is sleeping with his wife, or for the insurance money, or some other example of premeditated, first-degree murder, we should punish that severely.

For example, would you punish someone who lynched a black person more severely than someone who killed someone (not with the original intent to, but it became necessary in their mind) during a robbery? Or are those the same thing to you?

I see one as first-degree murder and the other as second-degree murder - not because of the person's motive for the murder, but because of whether the perpetrator went into the scene intending to kill someone or not. Those are statutorily defined as first-degree or second-degree, without regard to the person's motive.

Obviously people can receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating factors, but I don't think that hating the group that the victim belonged to should be an aggravating factor.

This statement is why I don't want to see hate crime laws - if two different people commit the exact same crime according to the statute, but one person gets a different sentence under a hate crime clause, then you're necessarily saying that that person's motive for the crime - not the crime itself - is worse than the other fellow's; unfortunately, you're simultaneously saying that the other person's motive is better than the first, which is, I think, the wrong approach. I don't want us to start grading one person's motive for a crime versus someone else's.

[Dagless]

I don't like how these laws protect some but not others. Which is discrimination in itself.

As South Park, Bernard Manning and many others said/say; either everythings okay or none of it is.

[Gelfin]

I don't like how these laws protect some but not others. Which is discrimination in itself.

But that isn't what they do at all. The law doesn't say "shooting black or Muslim or gay people is worse than shooting white or Christian or straight people." It says, "if you shoot someone because you don't like his race, religion or sexual orientation, then we consider that an aggravating circumstance." That protects everyone.

If you happen to be a part of a group that tends not to get shot because of race, religion or sexual orientation, then I'd say that's a pretty high-class problem.

[solvs]

Ugh, still we have to go over this? Intent does play into the sentencing. Which is why manslaughter is less than murder one. All this does is add something to the case that says if it does happen to be based on one of these reasons, which is very difficult to prove but necessary in places like where those kids who killed Matthew Shepard lived, it's more of a crime than if it was an accident or even a crime of passion. The difference between a barfight gone wrong, and, say, a group going queer chasing or lynching. Which is sadly, still needed.

You don't automatically make something a hate crime because the other person falls into one of these categories. It just doesn't happen like that. Despite South Park, and other claims to the contrary. Killing someone who's black, or gay - bad. Killing someone BECAUSE they're gay or black - worse.

How do people still not see this?

[obeygiant]

Ugh, still we have to go over this? Intent does play into the sentencing. Which is why manslaughter is less than murder one.

I think once you get to a point of whether killing someone on purpose or not it doesn't matter. Is murder one less than gay panic murder one?

[CorvusCamenarum]

You don't automatically make something a hate crime because the other person falls into one of these categories. It just doesn't happen like that. Despite South Park, and other claims to the contrary. Killing someone who's black, or gay - bad. Killing someone BECAUSE they're gay or black - worse.

How do people still not see this?
Please, explain why it's worse. And also please explain the justification of the notion that a gay or a black life is worth more than someone neither of those. A harsher penalty infers a worse crime, which is why killing a policeman brings a stiffer sentence than killing a random person. As a society, we've decided that a policeman's life is more valuable than the average, random citizen's.

Also, could you provide evidence of a minority being charged with a hate crime, because I have yet to hear of such a case. You would think if it ever happened it would be all over the media, sensationalist as it would be. Or perhaps you're comfortable with the idea of laws that only target specific segments of the people, which completely flies in the face of equal protection.

[pdham]

I actually support hate crime legislation, but, your reasoning seems flawed.

..its more of a crime than if it was an accident or even a crime of passion. The difference between a barfight gone wrong, and, say, a group going queer chasing or lynching. Which is sadly, still needed

With or without hate crime legislation there is already a legal distinction been a bar fight gone wrong or a crime of pasion and "queet chasing." Its the difference between murder one (pre-meditated) and the other degreees of homicide.

If you want to argue that hate crime legislation is needed, you need to show that there is a difference between murder one where a straight, white, etc individual is the victim; and murder one where an indivudals identity (sexual, gender, race, ethnicity) is a contributing factor.

[spaceboots06]

Don't start a fight or injure someone who's a different race than you. I've held that principle for 35 years of my life and I'm still a free person.

[leekohler]

I actually support hate crime legislation, but, your reasoning seems flawed.



With or without hate crime legislation there is already a legal distinction been a bar fight gone wrong or a crime of pasion and "queet chasing." Its the difference between murder one (pre-meditated) and the other degreees of homicide.

If you want to argue that hate crime legislation is needed, you need to show that there is a difference between murder one where a straight, white, etc individual is the victim; and murder one where an indivudals identity (sexual, gender, race, ethnicity) is a contributing factor.

As pointed out already several times- it's obvious that current laws aren't working. People have been using fear of others' sexual orientation to get lesser sentences and charges, and they get away with it.

[solvs]

I think once you get to a point of whether killing someone on purpose or not it doesn't matter. Is murder one less than gay panic murder one?
With or without hate crime legislation there is already a legal distinction been a bar fight gone wrong or a crime of pasion and "queet chasing." Its the difference between murder one (pre-meditated) and the other degreees of homicide.
As pointed out already several times- it's obvious that current laws aren't working. People have been using fear of others' sexual orientation to get lesser sentences and charges, and they get away with it.
Bingo. Because the opposite is happening. So the prosecutor, in these cases, would ask for hate crime severity, if it is, to turn it back around (again, only if it is) where otherwise the person on trial might actually be able to get the charge LOWERED by claiming the other person was, say, a homosexual. It's happened. The reference to gay panic being the point. So if you can prove the person is more inclined towards violence towards a gay or black person than they would be a white person, instead of pleading down, they'd get a harsher sentence. So a white male who doesn't go around beating up other whites at bars, but decides to only beat up a minority, while yelling racial epitaphs, and it turns out is a neonazi, doesn't get a smaller sentence than he would for a bar fight with another white.

If you want to argue that hate crime legislation is needed, you need to show that there is a difference between murder one where a straight, white, etc individual is the victim; and murder one where an indivudals identity (sexual, gender, race, ethnicity) is a contributing factor.
Actually that's the point, is that this needs to be proven for it to be a "hate crime".

Please, explain why it's worse. And also please explain the justification of the notion that a gay or a black life is worth more than someone neither of those. A harsher penalty infers a worse crime, which is why killing a policeman brings a stiffer sentence than killing a random person. As a society, we've decided that a policeman's life is more valuable than the average, random citizen's.
Some of you seem to be stuck on the fact that it's just because the victim is, say, black or gay, and that the perpetrator is a white male. This is not the case. As I pointed out, if it's a bar fight gone bad, not a hate crime, no matter who is involved. Unless the prosecutor can prove it's a hate crime, which they might only need to do if it's in a place like where Sheppard was killed, and surprisingly, that kind of thing is tolerated more than you'd think. I've seen it first hand with black friends, unfortunately it does still happen. I've actually been witness to a white person attacking a black person, and the black person is hauled off while the white person gets a slap on the wrist if anything. Happened to a group of students not too long ago too.

Look, I get that there is some worry about overuse. But again, it's not automatic, and any prosecutor worth their salt isn't going to try something like this, especially as controversial as it is, without some really solid proof. If I'm a big supporter of gay rights, and can prove it, but happen to get into a fight with a gay person, especially if I don't know until afterwards they're gay, and they try this on me, I'll walk. Sadly, what's going to happen anyway, more likely, even if there's proof of it being a hate crime. Some will still walk, as is happening today, even with laws like this. Even when lawyers don't go for the hate crime part.

[pdham]

Bingo. Because the opposite is happening. So the prosecutor, in these cases, would ask for hate crime severity, if it is, to turn it back around (again, only if it is) where otherwise the person on trial might actually be able to get the charge LOWERED by claiming the other person was, say, a homosexual. It's happened. The reference to gay panic being the point. So if you can prove the person is more inclined towards violence towards a gay or black person than they would be a white person, instead of pleading down, they'd get a harsher sentence. So a white male who doesn't go around beating up other whites at bars, but decides to only beat up a minority, while yelling racial epitaphs, and it turns out is a neonazi, doesn't get a smaller sentence than he would for a bar fight with another white.


Exactly. Like I said, I support hate crime legislation for exactly the reasoning you just expressed. My only point, and admittedly I didn't make it very clear (I am at work), was that the arguement always seems to devolve into - "we already have laws for that" or "a crime is a crime no matter what, etc."

We need to focus on how hate crime legislation is trying to provide justice to a groups of people who are eunfortunately often not fairly represented. It isn't really about the crime, but the flaws in prosecution.

Sorry Solvs, poorly formulated post on my part.:)

[solvs]

Sorry Solvs, poorly formulated post on my part.:)

No, me too. Been up all night, some of it trying to get through that healthcare bill. :eek: Lee put it better awhile back, and the brief rephrasing on this page.

[opinioncircle]

Don't start a fight or injure someone who's a different race than you. I've held that principle for 35 years of my life and I'm still a free person.

And you don't think there is something that doesn't sound quite good? Sure you're free, but shouldn't you be able to act (in a defensive situation of course) without being scared of the repercussions ?

[rhett7660]

And you don't think there is something that doesn't sound quite good? Sure you're free, but shouldn't you be able to act (in a defensive situation of course) without being scared of the repercussions ?

I don't think self defense is the issue. Using the defense that someone "hit on you or asked you out" is not a defense for beating the hell out of them or worse killing them.

[leekohler]

I don't think self defense is the issue. Using the defense that someone "hit on you or asked you out" is not a defense for beating the hell out of them or worse killing them.

Self defense isn't the issue. How did that poster come up with that? :confused:

[opinioncircle]

Self defense isn't the issue. How did that poster come up with that? :confused:

I came up because the poster I quoted said "fight or injure". However I think that the definition of hate crimes is just too vague these days. If someone tries to hijack my car when I'm in it, and that in the process I run him/her over, should this be considered a hate crime? To me no...

[leekohler]

I came up because the poster I quoted said "fight or injure". However I think that the definition of hate crimes is just too vague these days. If someone tries to hijack my car when I'm in it, and that in the process I run him/her over, should this be considered a hate crime? To me no...

No, it wouldn't. I don't think a lot of you understand what the term means. The law isn't vague about it at all.

[Zombie Acorn]

No, it wouldn't. I don't think a lot of you understand what the term means. The law isn't vague about it at all.

Proving it was actually a hate crime is a problem though. If I make a racist remark in a bar and then go out and punch a minority because he was pissing me off, did it happen because I was racist or because I was pissed off at a person?

[leekohler]

Proving it was actually a hate crime is a problem though. If I make a racist remark in a bar and then go out and punch a minority because he was pissing me off, did it happen because I was racist or because I was pissed off at a person?

That would have to be established in court. And honestly, it would sound like a bit of both.

[MOFS]

To quote the New York State Legislature (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm)

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.

By introducing nationwide hate crime laws (there are already hate crime laws in 45 states according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States)), the courts can use this as a further reason to add further punitive measures. In the UK, a bar-fight death would be manslaughter (unless excessive force was used) due to its spontaneous, unplanned course of events (ie a random victim). A hate crime by definition has a degree of pre-planning, so deserves a worse sentence.

[opinioncircle]

Proving it was actually a hate crime is a problem though. If I make a racist remark in a bar and then go out and punch a minority because he was pissing me off, did it happen because I was racist or because I was pissed off at a person?

That's my point. THIS is where the law is vague. Because the judge will have its own interpretation...

[Gelfin]

Proving it was actually a hate crime is a problem though. If I make a racist remark in a bar and then go out and punch a minority because he was pissing me off, did it happen because I was racist or because I was pissed off at a person?

The law has dealt with vague and sometimes difficult to establish notions of "intent" all along, but in many cases the evidence is there. If it isn't, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

While I would recommend against screaming racial epithets when getting into a fight with someone of a different race (or ever, really), this idea that any unpleasant interaction you might have across a minority divide will result in hate crimes charges against you is a more than a little bit hyperbolic.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where the defendant's hateful intent is possible to establish legally. I come back to the example of burning a cross on somebody's lawn, something culturally understood to have a specific hateful meaning.

Or, more topically, one afternoon I was on a streetcar near the Castro. There happened to be a number of gay guys on the train. Some young tough dude got on and immediately started loudly muttering how he hates ********** ********ts, giving the stinkeye to everybody in sight. He was basically trying hard to pick a fight. Nobody responded, but suppose that immediately after putting on that little show, the dude had pulled out a handgun and shot somebody. It would be pretty easy to establish what was going through his mind, because he announced what was going through his mind, antecedent to any hypothetical trouble that could have provoked him to say something intemperate.

You're right that you can't always tell. But sometimes you can.

[opinioncircle]

The law has dealt with vague and sometimes difficult to establish notions of "intent" all along, but in many cases the evidence is there. If it isn't, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

While I would recommend against screaming racial epithets when getting into a fight with someone of a different race (or ever, really), this idea that any unpleasant interaction you might have across a minority divide will result in hate crimes charges against you is a more than a little bit hyperbolic.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where the defendant's hateful intent is possible to establish legally. I come back to the example of burning a cross on somebody's lawn, something culturally understood to have a specific hateful meaning.

Or, more topically, one afternoon I was on a streetcar near the Castro. There happened to be a number of gay guys on the train. Some young tough dude got on and immediately started loudly muttering how he hates ********** ********ts, giving the stinkeye to everybody in sight. He was basically trying hard to pick a fight. Nobody responded, but suppose that immediately after putting on that little show, the dude had pulled out a handgun and shot somebody. It would be pretty easy to establish what was going through his mind, because he announced what was going through his mind, antecedent to any hypothetical trouble that could have provoked him to say something intemperate.

You're right that you can't always tell. But sometimes you can.

I do agree with you. The line is very thin on this one...