Newest Protected Class - The Homeless

[catzmeow]

Maryland adds homeless to hate crime law - Politics - News & Observer

Maryland became the first state in the nation to extend hate-crimes protection to homeless people under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Martin O'Malley.

The bill adds homelessness to the protected categories under Maryland's hate-crimes law, which allows prosecutors to seek tougher penalties for those who target people because of factors such as race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

Please stop the madness.

 

[Ravi]

Damn.

What next, dwarves?

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, this is one of the few that make sense. Sometimes they do hit the nail on the head. The reasoning was a recent influx of attacks on the homeless in many areas (Seattle was horrible). Several were burnt alive, many more beaten to death. The problem is that many see them as "ghosts" so they don't feel bad about it at all, they don't fear the law, and often the crime scenes are not discovered until it's too late to gather enough evidence to convict the perps because no one knows that the victim is there. It's pure logic this time.

 

[catzmeow]

Damn.

What next, dwarves?

Prostitutes. Jack the Ripper, beware.

 

[KittenKoder]

Damn.

What next, dwarves?

Prostitutes. Jack the Ripper, beware.

Most of them are "protected" already, junkies are treated like they are babies by the law these days, and most prostitutes are junkies.

 

[catzmeow]

Actually, this is one of the few that make sense. Sometimes they do hit the nail on the head. The reasoning was a recent influx of attacks on the homeless in many areas (Seattle was horrible). Several were burnt alive, many more beaten to death. The problem is that many see them as "ghosts" so they don't feel bad about it at all, they don't fear the law, and often the crime scenes are not discovered until it's too late to gather enough evidence to convict the perps because no one knows that the victim is there. It's pure logic this time.

The problem is that adding them to this legislation does essentially nothing to protect homeless people.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, this is one of the few that make sense. Sometimes they do hit the nail on the head. The reasoning was a recent influx of attacks on the homeless in many areas (Seattle was horrible). Several were burnt alive, many more beaten to death. The problem is that many see them as "ghosts" so they don't feel bad about it at all, they don't fear the law, and often the crime scenes are not discovered until it's too late to gather enough evidence to convict the perps because no one knows that the victim is there. It's pure logic this time.

The problem is that adding them to this legislation does essentially nothing to protect homeless people.

No, but it might make criminals think that the low odds of being caught isn't worth it. It's more of a "we've tried everything else, may as well see if this slows it down" thing. Trust me, when you live in the system as long as I had, you see it differently. It would be different if enough of the homeless weren't too paranoid to actually register somewhere, but the sad fact is that many, especially in areas like mine where they closed all the mental wards, are not mentally capable of living a normal life. Many are paranoid of the government, becoming homeless because they think people are out to get them, or that giving even their full name to authorities puts them in danger. Also I don't care about the ones that are homeless to evade the law, but most of those are in the shelters so they aren't even at risk. The ones it's trying to protect are those who are too unstable to seek safety and aid themselves, since the government doesn't want to pay for safe places to put these people, something else has to be tried.

 

[Ravi]

Damn.

What next, dwarves?

Prostitutes. Jack the Ripper, beware.

Being a prostitute is a choice. Isn't it?

 

[KittenKoder]

Damn.

What next, dwarves?

Prostitutes. Jack the Ripper, beware.

Being a prostitute is a choice. Isn't it?

So can being homeless, yes, some do choose to remain homeless.

 

[catzmeow]

No, but it might make criminals think that the low odds of being caught isn't worth it.

You're assuming that the people who would risk 25 to life in prison for burning a homeless man to death are going to be deterred by an additional 5 years, i.e., that they are operating on some rational basis. Most aren't.

Or, if they are, it isn't a logical framework that is functional in normal society.

 

[catzmeow]

So can being homeless, yes, some do choose to remain homeless.

a lot of homeless people do indeed choose to remain homeless, they often have dual diagnosis issues (substance addiction and mental health issues), and they don't do well within the structure of mainstream society. A hundred and fifty years ago, they'd have been fur trappers and been perfectly happy.

 

[manifold]

Disclaimer: I vehemently oppose hate crime laws.


But...


If we're going to have them, why do we need to spell out ANY protected groups at all? Why not have any crime motivated by hatred toward ANY group, be covered?

 

[KittenKoder]

No, but it might make criminals think that the low odds of being caught isn't worth it.

You're assuming that the people who would risk 25 to life in prison for burning a homeless man to death are going to be deterred by an additional 5 years, i.e., that they are operating on some rational basis. Most aren't.

Or, if they are, it isn't a logical framework that is functional in normal society.

I would push for a harsher sentence. But I think the main goal was to get more attention for the homeless, it seems to have worked to that end. As I said, the main reason they are at a higher risk is because fewer people pay attention to them, if they at least got more attention then maybe they will be victimized less. It's a "tried everything else let's give this a shot" attempt. The classes that truly need the protection and attention rarely get it, thanks in part to all the attention whoring of the others. Here for instance, junkies and drunks get huge protections and benefits, until recently they could drain the system, thanks to DSHS though they can't anymore. But they still have more shelters, housing, and programs for junkies and drunks than they do for the mentally unstable. This may be the wake up call people need to see the flaws in the system.

 

[catzmeow]

If we're going to have them, why do we need to spell out ANY protected groups at all? Why not have any crime motivated by hatred toward ANY group, be covered?

Because that wouldn't get the politicians the same degree of brownie points from special interest groups.

 

[Sky Dancer]

"From 1999-2007, there have been 774 documented acts of violence committed against homeless individuals in the United States, 217 of which have resulted in deaths. In Maryland, documented attacks on homeless people date back at least to 1992, when a homeless Korean War veteran was killed in Annapolis after being soaked in urine, kicked down a ravine, and called a “worthless bum.” In 2001, a group of young men from South Baltimore began beating and robbing homeless people, a spree which resulted in three deaths. On Valentine’s Day in 2008, a homeless man was beaten to death while sleeping in an alley in Frederick.

These incidents demonstrate the dangerous reality of life without housing and the increasing disregard for people experiencing homelessness. This law magnifies the importance of protecting our most vulnerable neighbors. Adding homeless individuals to Maryland’s hate crimes law sends a message that homeless individuals are not second-class citizens and deserve the same protections as historically targeted groups."
National Coalition for the Homeless

 

[manifold]

For the record: I still maintain that use of the term "homeless" is offensive and degrading. I prefer the more politically correct "urban survivalists"

 

[catzmeow]

"From 1999-2007, there have been 774 documented acts of violence committed against homeless individuals in the United States, 217 of which have resulted in deaths.

Were they motivated purely by hate of their homeless status?

As stated, the only reason for these kinds of laws is to appeal to groups like the HRC and the homeless advocacy groups, and show what a good guy you are.

The impact is NADA, ZERO, ZILCH. But, some people prefer the empty gesture to meaningful inaction.

 

[catzmeow]

For the record: I still maintain that use of the term "homeless" is offensive and degrading. I prefer the more politically correct "urban survivalists"

I do prefer that term to "housing challenged," it sounds far more rugged and individualistic.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Actually, this is one of the few that make sense. Sometimes they do hit the nail on the head. The reasoning was a recent influx of attacks on the homeless in many areas (Seattle was horrible). Several were burnt alive, many more beaten to death. The problem is that many see them as "ghosts" so they don't feel bad about it at all, they don't fear the law, and often the crime scenes are not discovered until it's too late to gather enough evidence to convict the perps because no one knows that the victim is there. It's pure logic this time.

The problem is that adding them to this legislation does essentially nothing to protect homeless people.

All hate crime legislation affects the penalties for the crimes, and increases the likelihood that the perpetrators will be brought to justice.

No crime law prevents people from violence. Laws provide penalties for unacceptable behavior.

Hate crime laws increase the penalties for bias related crimes.


I think it's interesting that conservative Christians fight hate crime legislation.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/28/conservative-christians-support-hate-crimes/

 

[catzmeow]

All hate crime legislation affects the penalties for the crimes, and increases the likelihood that the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
.

The second is just flat wrong. The first is naive. A person who would burn a homeless person to death is already looking at 25 to life. Hate crime enhancements are meaningless in that scenario. And, it isn't even going to cross a perpetrator's mind. In the case of a white supremacist who beats a black man to death, they REALIZE they are committing a hate crime, and that makes it more appealing. In the case of a sicko who kills a homeless person, it's the last thing they are thinking about.

God, you have no understanding, whatsoever, of laws/criminal justice/how criminals think, and yet, you just keep talking.

You've already been thoroughly spanked in the other thread.

The fact of the matter is that hate crime legislation is MEANINGLESS in the justice system. It only means something in the minds of well-intentioned but clueless idiots.

The other part of this is that the prosecutor would have to prove that the MOTIVE in the case at hand was specific to the victim's homelessness. How exactly do you think he would prove that? Or, do you think that any crime against a homeless person should be sentenced more harshly?