Hate crime?

[catzmeow]

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

Last night, before she went to work...

And Matthew Shepard is actually her daughter's black boyfriend.

 

[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.

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

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

He wasn't killed because he was gay? Are you fucking kidding me? So they took him out into the middle of nowhere, tortured him, and left him to a fence because they wanted to rob him? Oh, and they just happened to find him in a gay bar?

Get a clue. Its not surprise that its people like you who argue against hate crime legislation.

 

[Nik]

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.

The motivation of the killer, in this case, is the same thing as the deceased being gay. There is no real difference between the two. Either it can come into play that he was killed for being gay, or not, make up your mind.

And no, Shephards killers didn't receive the maximum sentence possible. The max sentence would be the death penalty. And not everyone kills gays in such a horrific fashion that they would receive life in prison for the crime. In fact, most don't. You are taking one case and extrapolating its specifics to the whole which is quite obviously inapplicable.

And any evidence that passing new laws does not, and never will, reduce crime? Or is this just more made up bullshit on your part?

 

[catzmeow]

The motivation of the killer, in this case, is the same thing as the deceased being gay. There is no real difference between the two. Either it can come into play that he was killed for being gay, or not, make up your mind.

Actually, there is a huge difference between the two. The fact that a victim is gay is ONLY relevant if that plays into the killer's motive. Otherwise, it is totally irrelevant. A victim is a victim.

And no, Shephards killers didn't receive the maximum sentence possible. The max sentence would be the death penalty.

The hate crimes legislation up for debate at present would not push a sentence from LWOP to the death penalty. Thus, a discussion of the death penalty as a sanction is irrelevant. It only tacks on years (1-5) to a sentence. For a sentence of LWOP, even 5 years (the maximum) is irrelevant.

And not everyone kills gays in such a horrific fashion that they would receive life in prison for the crime. In fact, most don't.

I'm using the examples provided by you and Sky to support the need for these laws. In both cases, the proposed legislation would have been irrelevant during sentencing.

You are taking one case and extrapolating its specifics to the whole which is quite obviously inapplicable.

Actually, it is totally relevant. The fact that a crime is committed out of a desire to attack an entire group of people is ALREADY part of the sentencing process. Any legal expert will tell you that this law is extraneous to the existing sentence. The fact is that prisons are overcrowded, and tacking a year onto someone's sentence is not going to make a substantial difference in time served. If you want serious crimes to be treated seriously, there is no reason to segregate hate crimes for special treatment.

And any evidence that passing new laws does not, and never will, reduce crime? Or is this just more made up bullshit on your part?

You're in favor of the law. Show me how hate crimes legislation on the state level have reduced hate crimes.

 

[JBeukema]

Its not surprise that its people like you who argue against hate crime legislation.

People like me? And just what kind of people might that be, my ignorant friend?

 

[Nik]

Its not surprise that its people like you who argue against hate crime legislation.

People like me? And just what kind of people might that be, my ignorant friend?

Homophobic dipshits. "He wasn't killed cause he was gay"....pssh, my ass he wasn't.

 

[catzmeow]

Homophobic dipshits.

Amazing how you can draw such a precise conclusion from a single exchange on an online messageboard.

 

[Gurdari]

How is killing a white man less of a crime than killing a black man? It isn't. Why is ignoring international immigration law OK for Latin Americans?

Hahaha, those evil Mexicans, creating jobs for themselves and... oh wait. They are being HIRED, and encouraged to come here for work... who would do that?

Must be other illegals. REAL Americans would never profit from such lawless behavior.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"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."
Think Progress » GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People

I haven't seen anyone opposing hate crimes legislation for gay people. All I've seen on here is people opposing it period.

You shouldn't do murder, period. A rule that says you shouldn't do murder, especially if the person has "XYZ" characteristic, is redundant and ill-considered.

If you would like to make something criminal that is not already criminal, I'm all ears. But, in my opinion we can skip redundant criminalization.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How is killing a white man less of a crime than killing a black man? It isn't. Why is ignoring international immigration law OK for Latin Americans?

Hahaha, those evil Mexicans, creating jobs for themselves and... oh wait. They are being HIRED, and encouraged to come here for work... who would do that?

Must be other illegals. REAL Americans would never profit from such lawless behavior.

The government of Mexico is doing a large portion of it. This includes activities such as providing official documents for illegals, lobbying and advocating for the provision of drivers licenses, medical care, education exemptions, mortgages etc for illegals.

Why would the Government of Mexico do this? How about they have exported 27% of their labor for to the US? How about they get more than $20 Billion annually pumped into their economy from money sent to family members from laborers in the US.

This is not simply a matter of individuals flouting the law of another country to do what they want. This is the stated policy of the Mexican government.

As for US employers that employ illegals, they are law violators and should be punished in accordance with the law. However, whether to punish employers or not is usually just an excuse for not looking at the real problem, the borders need to be enforced by the federal government. It's the LAW. The Federal Government is charged with carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress. Until it is not the LAW anymore, the Homeland Security Department needs to enforce the immigration laws of this country.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

It doesn't need to be. In Shepard's case, for instance, the horrific manner of death would have been sufficient to get all the "extra" sentence you are going to get. Providing information that he was also gay and killed because of it, would have yielded nothing additional.

How should we distinguish the recent case to of the lesbian couple in the SF area? Facts: A lengthy relationship between the two turned sour. They were co-habiting but did not have funds to live separately when the relationship died. One began having a romantic relationship with another person. This went on for some period of months. Eventually, the uninvolved woman stabbed the involved roommate some 40 times and dumped her body.

Should she be charged with a hate crime? What if she yelled, "Die you fucking Dyke!" while she was stabbing her? Would that make a difference? If so, why? How is that workable in the general law? If I'm a self-loathing homosexual, do I get charged with a hate crime or am I permanently exempted?

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

It doesn't need to be. In Shepard's case, for instance, the horrific manner of death would have been sufficient to get all the "extra" sentence you are going to get. Providing information that he was also gay and killed because of it, would have yielded nothing additional.

How should we distinguish the recent case to of the lesbian couple in the SF area? Facts: A lengthy relationship between the two turned sour. They were co-habiting but did not have funds to live separately when the relationship died. One began having a romantic relationship with another person. This went on for some period of months. Eventually, the uninvolved woman stabbed the involved roommate some 40 times and dumped her body.

Should she be charged with a hate crime? What if she yelled, "Die you fucking Dyke!" while she was stabbing her? Would that make a difference? If so, why? How is that workable in the general law? If I'm a self-loathing homosexual, do I get charged with a hate crime or am I permanently exempted?

You've missed the point, and taken off on some sensational murder case that involves lesbians. Your position is what? This would theoretically be a hate crime, if one lesbian called the other a dyke while stabbing her 40 times?? Clearly, you have no idea what hate crime is, or why the legislation is needed and important. Your analogies are ridiculous.

If the Matthew Shepard case had been tried under the Matthew Shepard Act, the local courts could have applied for additional funds to try the case.

All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation.

 

[del]

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

It doesn't need to be. In Shepard's case, for instance, the horrific manner of death would have been sufficient to get all the "extra" sentence you are going to get. Providing information that he was also gay and killed because of it, would have yielded nothing additional.

How should we distinguish the recent case to of the lesbian couple in the SF area? Facts: A lengthy relationship between the two turned sour. They were co-habiting but did not have funds to live separately when the relationship died. One began having a romantic relationship with another person. This went on for some period of months. Eventually, the uninvolved woman stabbed the involved roommate some 40 times and dumped her body.

Should she be charged with a hate crime? What if she yelled, "Die you fucking Dyke!" while she was stabbing her? Would that make a difference? If so, why? How is that workable in the general law? If I'm a self-loathing homosexual, do I get charged with a hate crime or am I permanently exempted?

You've missed the point, and taken off on some sensational murder case that involves lesbians. Your position is what? This would theoretically be a hate crime, if one lesbian called the other a dyke while stabbing her 40 times?? Clearly, you have no idea what hate crime is, or why the legislation is needed and important. Your analogies are ridiculous.

If the Matthew Shepard case had been tried under the Matthew Shepard Act, the local courts could have applied for additional funds to try the case.

All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation.

the legislation is neither needed nor important so it does have that in common with existing hate crime legislation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

It doesn't need to be. In Shepard's case, for instance, the horrific manner of death would have been sufficient to get all the "extra" sentence you are going to get. Providing information that he was also gay and killed because of it, would have yielded nothing additional.

How should we distinguish the recent case to of the lesbian couple in the SF area? Facts: A lengthy relationship between the two turned sour. They were co-habiting but did not have funds to live separately when the relationship died. One began having a romantic relationship with another person. This went on for some period of months. Eventually, the uninvolved woman stabbed the involved roommate some 40 times and dumped her body.

Should she be charged with a hate crime? What if she yelled, "Die you fucking Dyke!" while she was stabbing her? Would that make a difference? If so, why? How is that workable in the general law? If I'm a self-loathing homosexual, do I get charged with a hate crime or am I permanently exempted?

You've missed the point. If the Matthew Shepard case had been tried under the Matthew Shepard Act, the local courts could have applied for additional funds to try the case.

All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation.

I may have missed the point, but, I think you have as well. You got as good as you were going to get in the Shepard case. There was no more. So why apply more funds to it?

If you hit a home run in baseball, its not like if you had hit it out of the stadium you get to run the bases twice. It's the same. A home run is a home run. You got life without parole, that's all you're going to get.

Now, me being pro-death, I might argue that I would want the death penalty, but it looks like that's an endangered species now anyway, so no need to muddy the waters.

 

[JBeukema]

Its not surprise that its people like you who argue against hate crime legislation.

People like me? And just what kind of people might that be, my ignorant friend?

Homophobic dipshits. .

You get the award for dumbest person on the board.

Amazing how you can draw such a precise conclusion from a single exchange on an online messageboard.

And be so wrong

 

[Nik]

Homophobic dipshits.

Amazing how you can draw such a precise conclusion from a single exchange on an online messageboard.

Please give me some other explanation for someone claiming that Shephard wasn't murdered because he was gay. It was "just a robbery".

 

[Nik]

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.

It doesn't need to be. In Shepard's case, for instance, the horrific manner of death would have been sufficient to get all the "extra" sentence you are going to get. Providing information that he was also gay and killed because of it, would have yielded nothing additional.

How should we distinguish the recent case to of the lesbian couple in the SF area? Facts: A lengthy relationship between the two turned sour. They were co-habiting but did not have funds to live separately when the relationship died. One began having a romantic relationship with another person. This went on for some period of months. Eventually, the uninvolved woman stabbed the involved roommate some 40 times and dumped her body.

Should she be charged with a hate crime? What if she yelled, "Die you fucking Dyke!" while she was stabbing her? Would that make a difference? If so, why? How is that workable in the general law? If I'm a self-loathing homosexual, do I get charged with a hate crime or am I permanently exempted?

Shephards not the only gay to get murdered for being gay.

 

[catzmeow]

Please give me some other explanation for someone claiming that Shephard wasn't murdered because he was gay. It was "just a robbery".

Misinformed. Or, robbery could have been a motive in the crime. I'd have to research it.

It's like Cassie whatshername from Columbine, they wrote the book about her murder and how "she said yes," and then the reports come out, and the two gunmen never even talked to her.

There are a lot of myths and misinformation that circulate around stories like this.

I'm not going to jump to the hysterical conclusion that the dude is a homophobe just because he presents an alternative motive. He may be, he may not be, but that's simply not enough evidence either way.

 

[catzmeow]

Shephards not the only gay to get murdered for being gay.

Tech gave you another example of a gay person being murdered. How about you go back, read it, and write an actual response.

 

[Nik]

Shephards not the only gay to get murdered for being gay.

Tech gave you another example of a gay person being murdered. How about you go back, read it, and write an actual response.

He did not give me an example of a gay person murdered for being gay. So why exactly is a response necessary?