Hate crime?

[Tech_Esq]

Yes. I amended my post to include that and our agreement in outcome.

Is it just me, or do you find this entire topic incredibly annoying? More laws does not equal better justice for god's sake. Convincing people of that would be a wonderful thing.

LOL...I find it annoying that this is the 3rd thread on this in the last week.

You should punish the crime. If the crime is not punished adequately, then you should increase the punishment for the crime. I don't see what sense it makes to punish murder committed out of hate for some general attribute of the murdered person resulting in a greater punishment. It should result in the same penalty, death or life without parole.

Same with assault. When I first got back to DC, there was a video on the news taken by some residents of SouthEast DC and sent to a gang in NY. The video showed a black guy who stopped to ask directions of some other black residents of DC. One guy asked him what he wanted and when he responded, "directions." The guy punched him in the face and knocked him out. They proceeded to pee on him. Then someone shot him in the butt. Then they tried to drive a car over him.

So, under hate crime theory, that guy is shit outta luck, cuz he's black. He gets no extra juice on the scum that did this to him. But, if those guys had been white, he would have been able to get more time on their sentence.

That's dumb. Sorry, it just is.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yes. I amended my post to include that and our agreement in outcome.

Is it just me, or do you find this entire topic incredibly annoying? More laws does not equal better justice for god's sake. Convincing people of that would be a wonderful thing.

LOL...I find it annoying that this is the 3rd thread on this in the last week.

Why is it annoying? It's big news this week. The Matthew Shepard Act passed the House and moves on to the Senate. It's taken 11 years to get this far.


The main reason for committing hate crime appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups. For example, Dr. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychology fellow at the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, has found that, in some settings, offenders perceive that they have societal permission to engage in violence against homosexuals.

Researchers have concluded that hate crimes are not necessarily random, uncontrollable, or inevitable occurrences. There is overwhelming evidence that society can intervene to reduce or prevent many forms of violence, especially among young people, including the hate-induced violence that threatens and intimidates entire categories of people.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998, introduced in both the House (H.R. 3081) and Senate (S. 1529), seeks to expand federal jurisdiction over hate crimes by (1) allowing federal authorities to investigate all possible hate crimes, not only those where the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting, going to school, or crossing state lines; and (2) expanding the categories that are currently covered by hate crimes legislation to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability.


Why do people commit hate crimes?

Hate crimes are message crimes, according to Dr. Jack McDevitt, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome in a particular neighborhood, community, school, or workplace.

http://www.apa.org/releases/hate.html

 

[Immanuel]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

We already have different degrees of homicide. Getting into a car accident and killing someone would most likely be negligent homicide while shooting someone in the face, if it was deliberate would be murder either first or second degree and supposedly is punishable by more time in prison than an accident.

We don't need to say, that since this straight person killed a guy we all believe to be gay, the straight guy must spend an extra 15 years in prison. The victim is dead and the killer deserves to be punished for his crime regardless of whether he did it out of hate or if it were a robbery gone bad. He killed the guy. Let him suffer the consequences of that action.

For example Joe (a straight man) kills Bobbi (a gay man) in cold blood because Joe hates gay people. Joe should do the time for killing Bobbi, no question about it.

Conversely Joe (the same straight guy) kills Steve in a robbery attempt. No hate was involved at all, just a robbery attempt gone sour. Joe should do the time for killing Steve.

Why should Steve's family not get the same "satisfaction" at seeing Joe do his full time as Bobbi's family?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

"A federal hate crimes law already exists: Passed in 1968, it allowed federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. The new law would simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups, and allow local governments to get needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions. The need for such parity was made starkly clear more than a decade ago, in 1998, during the investigations of two different murders:

The Laramie, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office had to furlough five deputies in order to cover the more than $150,000 that it cost to investigate Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet when Jasper, Texas investigated the lynching of James Byrd, Jr., it received $284,000 in federal funds because Byrd’s murder was motivated by race, rather than sexual orientation."
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/

 

[Nik]

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

So motive matters...except if they are killing someone gay. Got it.

 

[Yurt]

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

motive is a factor in proving guilt and some states do allow for motive to enhance sentences, but isn't the greatest consideration in determining degrees of murder or considering manslaugher....premeditation

should someone go to prison longer because they killed their wife vs their best friend or brother or sister...i agree with you that this is a sop to advocacy groups...

 

[catzmeow]

So motive matters...except if they are killing someone gay. Got it.

Strawman, and a bad one at that. I know you aren't used to THINKING critically. Try it. You may like it.

Motive is ALREADY a consideration in sentencing and proving guilt. If someone kills a person simply because they are gay, that fact will ALREADY be presented during sentencing as an aggravating factor to the offense, and will likely result in more time. If we're talking a homicide, and it's a heinous crime, the person is ALREADY going to be charged with the MAXIMUM possible offense, and will likely serve the maximum sentence. Hate crimes legislation has NO impact on sentence served.

It didn't with Matthew Shepherd's perpetrators, and it didn't in the other cases brought up by Sky.

But, don't let the facts stand in the way of your paradigms, man.

That's why I say this is a sop to well-intentioned (but stupid) liberals and do-gooders, as well as a kiss to advocacy groups. But the real time effect is ZERO.

How difficult is it to comprehend this? Apparently, pretty damn hard.

 

[JBeukema]

Shepard was not killed because he was gay. This bill is bullshit and a myth

 

[Nik]

So motive matters...except if they are killing someone gay. Got it.

Strawman, and a bad one at that. I know you aren't used to THINKING critically. Try it. You may like it.

Motive is ALREADY a consideration in sentencing and proving guilt. If someone kills a person simply because they are gay, that fact will ALREADY be presented during sentencing as an aggravating factor to the offense, and will likely result in more time. If we're talking a homicide, and it's a heinous crime, the person is ALREADY going to be charged with the MAXIMUM possible offense, and will likely serve the maximum sentence. Hate crimes legislation has NO impact on sentence served.

It didn't with Matthew Shepherd's perpetrators, and it didn't in the other cases brought up by Sky.

But, don't let the facts stand in the way of your paradigms, man.

That's why I say this is a sop to well-intentioned (but stupid) liberals and do-gooders, as well as a kiss to advocacy groups. But the real time effect is ZERO.

How difficult is it to comprehend this? Apparently, pretty damn hard.

No. That someone kills someone because they are gay does not increase the penalty served under the current system. Learn your facts first, please.

Umm...care to tell me how hate crimes legislation that didn't exist could have changed the sentences of Matthew Shephards killers? Something that didn't exist didn't have any effect? Astounding! What a brilliant conclusion on your part.

 

[LaLinda75]

Will it be considered a hate crime if the person doing the killing is a minority who is here illegally and he/she kills a white person, a homosexual, a heterosexual while yelling slurs? Is it a hate crime when someone in the minority kills someone in the majority and uses slurs? Is it a hate crime when a minority kills a minority? Where are the lines drawn? What if it had been two illegal latinos killing a white boy while shouting racial slurs? Maybe the bleeding heart Jillian can answer.
I agree with Toome. Murder is already a hate crime - no need to give it another status. B]

 

[catzmeow]

No. That someone kills someone because they are gay does not increase the penalty served under the current system. Learn your facts first, please.

Wrong. It would be an aggravating factor, just like a dozen other factors, that is considered during sentencing.

 

[catzmeow]

Umm...care to tell me how hate crimes legislation that didn't exist could have changed the sentences of Matthew Shephards killers? Something that didn't exist didn't have any effect? Astounding! What a brilliant conclusion on your part.

Matthew Shepard's killers received life without the possibility of parole. Exactly how would you extend that sentence, Einstein?

 

[Nik]

No. That someone kills someone because they are gay does not increase the penalty served under the current system. Learn your facts first, please.

Wrong. It would be an aggravating factor, just like a dozen other factors, that is considered during sentencing.

Aggravating factors differ with jurisdiction. I doubt many jurisdictions have allowed the homosexuality of the deceased to be an aggravating factor.

 

[Nik]

Umm...care to tell me how hate crimes legislation that didn't exist could have changed the sentences of Matthew Shephards killers? Something that didn't exist didn't have any effect? Astounding! What a brilliant conclusion on your part.

Matthew Shepard's killers received life without the possibility of parole. Exactly how would you extend that sentence, Einstein?

Nice nonsequiter there. You stated that hate crime legislation that did not exist changed the sentence of Shephards killers. You were, quite obviously, wrong.

By the way, this was a state crime. Federal hate crime legislation would only effect federal crimes.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

So motive matters...except if they are killing someone gay. Got it.

That's right. I remember a co-worker in the lunch room commenting that he wished he had been present at the Shepard murder to hold the flashlight for the killers so that they could inflict even more torture on Matthew.

 

[Nik]

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

So motive matters...except if they are killing someone gay. Got it.

That's right. I remember a co-worker in the lunch room commenting that he wished he had been present at the Shepard murder to hold the flashlight for the killers so that they could inflict even more torture on Matthew.

Shephard got all the attention cause he was tortured. Anyone hear about the lesbian in Oakland who got attacked? Or the 2 guys in NYC who got beaten with a lead pipe because they were "gay" (they actually weren't). No? Oh right...thats cause gays getting murdered isn't national news...its only local news.

 

[JBeukema]

No. That someone kills someone because they are gay does not increase the penalty served under the current system. Learn your facts first, please.

The sexuality of the victim is never a factor, and it should never be


People, MATTHEW SHEPARD WAS NOT KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS GAY

he was killed during a robbery

Wrong. It would be an aggravating factor, just like a dozen other factors, that is considered during sentencing.

They can't seem to grasp the concept, cat

Aggravating factors differ with jurisdiction.

As do mos laws. That's the way a federated republic works

I doubt many jurisdictions have allowed the homosexuality of the deceased to be an aggravating factor.

see above

Oh right...thats cause gays getting murdered isn't national news...its only local news.

That goes for most murders

 

[catzmeow]

Aggravating factors differ with jurisdiction. I doubt many jurisdictions have allowed the homosexuality of the deceased to be an aggravating factor.

The homosexuality of the deceased ISN'T a factor. The motivation of the killer WOULD BE. God damn. You have no idea what you're talking about here, do you? You are literally talking out of your ass.

Also, the defendents in the Matthew Shepard case received life sentences without the possibility of parole. Again: How would hate crimes legislation have impacted their sentences? THEY ALREADY RECEIVED THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE POSSIBLE.

Well-intentioned idiots.

Guess what, y'all? Passing new laws DOES NOT, and NEVER WILL, reduce crime. Prosecuting crimes to the fullest, under the laws currently on the books, is the best possible solution.

 

[catzmeow]

That's right. I remember a co-worker in the lunch room commenting that he wished he had been present at the Shepard murder to hold the flashlight for the killers so that they could inflict even more torture on Matthew.

I call bullshit.

 

[del]

That's right. I remember a co-worker in the lunch room commenting that he wished he had been present at the Shepard murder to hold the flashlight for the killers so that they could inflict even more torture on Matthew.

I call bullshit.

it probably happened in some little backwater..........