Transgender Killing

[Shattered]

Because you don't seem to understand what I have been saying...dead is dead...hate crime is BS...simple.

You don't get that until you're at least 29 and a half.

 

[JayW]

The following excerpt is a bit dated, but I agree with the sentiments expressed:

Hate crime legislation can serve as a deterrent. Most hate offenses are committed by a group of perpetrators who are not unlike the four young persons allegedly involved in the gay-bashing and murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. Typically, there is one leader and a number of other young people who go along with their friends, because they don't know how to get themselves out of a bad situation. Having a strong hate crime law that is actively prosecuted may not dissuade a hardened hatemonger, but it may give the less committed participants in a bias crime enough reason to convince his buddies that the assault on a vulnerable victim is simply not worth the risk.

Whether in Wyoming or at the federal level, there is every reason to support legislation. Most hate crimes are not murders they are intimidation and threats that often escalate into much worse unless they are stopped in their tracks. And that is precisely the point of hate crime legislation it is designed to send a zero-tolerance message to both perpetrators and victims. To the perpetrators, such laws say loud and clear that Americans reject hate in all of its forms and that they will no longer tolerate intolerance. To victims, hate crime laws suggest that law enforcement authorities will aggressively attempt to apprehend the offenders, even if it means bringing in the FBI.

Laws play many roles in our society. Legislation allows us to prosecute those who commit acts against society, but legislation also reflects the values that the members of a society hold. Similarly, hate crime legislation reflects our collective belief that we Americans are stronger when all or our people have an equal opportunity to participate in democracy.

Perhaps for the first time in history, Americans have taken an initiative in reducing bigotry and prejudice, not because we are in the midst of a crisis, but simply because it is the right thing to do, because it will protect vulnerable people from harm. It would be a shame to abandon this basic American principle.

[Editor's Note : Another Key motivation for retaining hate crimes laws is that without hate crime legislation there would be no way to determine the level of intergroup conflict occurring within our communities. This information is critical towards identifying where resources and efforts have to be allocated to prevent the escalation of racial, ethnic, religious, and other intergroup tension.]

Jack McDevitt is co-director of the Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research and Jack Levin is the Brudnick Professor of Sociology and Criminology, both at Northeastern University. They are co-authors of Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed published by Plenum Press.

 

[manu1959]

The following is a bit dated, but I agree with the sentiments expressed:

utter crap....this would mean as a straight white dude you can do shit to me that would be illegal to do to a cross dressing black dude on the down low.....

crime is crime....all "men" are equal under the law

 

[GotZoom]

The following excerpt is a bit dated, but I agree with the sentiments expressed:



....And that is precisely the point of hate crime legislation it is designed to send a zero-tolerance message to both perpetrators and victims. To the perpetrators, such laws say loud and clear that Americans reject hate in all of its forms and that they will no longer tolerate intolerance. To victims, hate crime laws suggest that law enforcement authorities will aggressively attempt to apprehend the offenders, even if it means bringing in the FBI.

Perhaps for the first time in history, Americans have taken an initiative in reducing bigotry and prejudice, not because we are in the midst of a crisis, but simply because it is the right thing to do, because it will protect vulnerable people from harm. It would be a shame to abandon this basic American principle.

[Editor's Note : Another Key motivation for retaining hate crimes laws is that without hate crime legislation there would be no way to determine the level of intergroup conflict occurring within our communities. This information is critical towards identifying where resources and efforts have to be allocated to prevent the escalation of racial, ethnic, religious, and other intergroup tension.]

You honestly think that a group of african-americans who beat up a white guy while yelling "cracker" will be prosecuted with a hate crime?

 

[JayW]

You don't get that until you're at least 29 and a half.

Damn, and I'll be 30 in a few months

 

[JayW]

utter crap....this would mean as a straight white dude you can do shit to me that would be illegal to do to a cross dressing black dude on the down low.....

How so? If I beat you both up it would still be illegal... for example.

 

[manu1959]

How so? If I beat you both up it would still be illegal... for example.

illegal possibly, but the dude that beat me up would be charged with assault and get a lighter sentence than the other dude how would be charged with assault and a hate crime with stiffer sentencing penalties.

thus i am not being treated equally under the law

 

[Mr. P]

The following excerpt is a bit dated, but I agree with the sentiments expressed:

Hate crime legislation can serve as a deterrent. Most hate offenses are committed by a group of perpetrators who are not unlike the four young persons allegedly involved in the gay-bashing and murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. Typically, there is one leader and a number of other young people who go along with their friends, because they don't know how to get themselves out of a bad situation. Having a strong hate crime law that is actively prosecuted may not dissuade a hardened hatemonger, but it may give the less committed participants in a bias crime enough reason to convince his buddies that the assault on a vulnerable victim is simply not worth the risk.

Whether in Wyoming or at the federal level, there is every reason to support legislation. Most hate crimes are not murders they are intimidation and threats that often escalate into much worse unless they are stopped in their tracks. And that is precisely the point of hate crime legislation it is designed to send a zero-tolerance message to both perpetrators and victims. To the perpetrators, such laws say loud and clear that Americans reject hate in all of its forms and that they will no longer tolerate intolerance. To victims, hate crime laws suggest that law enforcement authorities will aggressively attempt to apprehend the offenders, even if it means bringing in the FBI.

Laws play many roles in our society. Legislation allows us to prosecute those who commit acts against society, but legislation also reflects the values that the members of a society hold. Similarly, hate crime legislation reflects our collective belief that we Americans are stronger when all or our people have an equal opportunity to participate in democracy.

Perhaps for the first time in history, Americans have taken an initiative in reducing bigotry and prejudice, not because we are in the midst of a crisis, but simply because it is the right thing to do, because it will protect vulnerable people from harm. It would be a shame to abandon this basic American principle.

[Editor's Note : Another Key motivation for retaining hate crimes laws is that without hate crime legislation there would be no way to determine the level of intergroup conflict occurring within our communities. This information is critical towards identifying where resources and efforts have to be allocated to prevent the escalation of racial, ethnic, religious, and other intergroup tension.]

Jack McDevitt is co-director of the Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research and Jack Levin is the Brudnick Professor of Sociology and Criminology, both at Northeastern University. They are co-authors of Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed published by Plenum Press.

 

[JayW]

Hmm... how about this example:

Say we have a Jewish household. Someone vandalizes the house by painting huge swastikas all over it.

Next door, the house is vandalized by having 'Limp Bizkit' painted on it.

Same crime? Same punishment?

 

[Mr. P]

Hmm... how about this example:

Say we have a Jewish household. Someone vandalizes the house by painting huge swastikas all over it.

Next door, the house is vandalized by having 'Limp Bizkit' painted on it.

Same crime? Same punishment?

Yep..It's called vandalism..

 

[manu1959]

Hmm... how about this example:

Say we have a Jewish household. Someone vandalizes the house by painting huge swastikas all over it.

Next door, the house is vandalized by having 'Limp Bizkit' painted on it.

Same crime? Same punishment?

i hate limp biscut those fers should be nutted

 

[Mr. P]

Yep..It's called vandalism..

Let me ask you this...one uses green paint..the other blue..Same crime?

 

[manu1959]

Let me ask you this...one uses green paint..the other blue..Same crime?

arguing with yourself olde man?

 

[JayW]

I'd rather have the swastikas painted on my house, Limp Bizkit sucks!

Ha-ha. I was hoping someone would say that.

 

[Mr. P]

It's a crime to paint your house green! :teeth:

Depends on the shade..

 

[Mr. P]

arguing with yourself olde man?

No..I don't think so, but maybe..I don't know..

 

[xandy123]

Im wary of hate crimes myself since, while we can all agree that hate is generally bad, we cant all agree on what constitutes hate and what constitutes a belife system. There are some people in this country who do far more damage to minorities (Jews,gays,blacks,Catholics,Muslims,etc) by openly and publicaly disparaging them and condeming them in various ways and for various reasons. This is usually cosiderd to fall under the protection of the first amendment to the consitution. Essentialy people have the right to hate. However while dead is dead that alone usually does not satisfy people. They want an explanation for why people kill and all too often we see that the reasons why people kill make them martyrs or villans. As discusses we often feel that people who premeditate their crimes are more reprehensible than people who kill as a sort of reflex or the result of some emotional shock. Hate crimes are merely the result of peoples desire to know what went on in the mind of the killer so that someday we can preven that sort of crime(as if murder and killing will ever cease to be). Simply put the act of killing alone, Though atrocious, does not alwasy satisfy many people's definition of right or wrong. Killing in self defense is seen as moral, while killing in cold blood is almost always seen as wrong. The same goes with abortion, execution,euthanasia, and other forms of killing. This presents people with a serious problem. The more we investigate the drive and motive of criminals, the more the line between them and the rest of the law abiding citizencry begins to disappear. We as a society must balance our desire to inquire and punish certain people more than others in order to send a message about their behavior with our desire to maintain a world that is built on order and morality. In the case of hate crimes we must decide whether it is more important to send the message that certain crimes are worse than others, or to maintain an atmosphere where the crime is punished and not the reasons behind it
sorry if i made any spelling mistakes (besides capitals)