CA Bill seeks to eliminate "gay panic" defense

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vniow, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1

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


    Its about time this homo/transphobic defense was put out to pasture.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    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.
     
  3. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #3
    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....
     
  4. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #4
    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.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Anybody wanna bet the right comes after this one in full force real soon?
     
  6. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #6
    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
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    Oh, and I doubt they'd want to touch this one with a ten foot pole.

    (what? everyone else gets to make lame puns)
     
  8. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #8
    Yeah, that we're out to get our special rights again. Oh, wait....
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    May I ask why?
     
  10. Lazyhound macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    #10
    I'm going to guess that it's because all crimes are "hate crimes".
     
  11. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #11
    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.
     
  12. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #12
    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.

    Not all crimes are motivated by hatred, but murder certainly is.
     
  13. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #13
    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.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    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.
     
  15. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #15
    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.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    severity and pre-planning are taken into account, but does that really speak to motive?

    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.

    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?
     
  17. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #17
    You proved my point. He committed a crime regardless of his motives. He'll already be charged with murder.

    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?
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Blackheart macrumors 6502a

    Blackheart

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    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.
     
  20. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #20
    So, murder is worse when it involves the death of a minority?

    It's called assault and battery.

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

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

    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.
     
  21. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #21
    Exactly. Thanks for summing that up, Blackheart.
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    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.

    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.
     
  23. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    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.
     
  24. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #24
    i may regret asking, but what are you getting at exactly?
     
  25. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #25
    If he murdered you only because he hates straight people, then I guess he could be charged with a hate crime.
     

Share This Page