Newest Protected Class - The Homeless

[Sky Dancer]

"Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of penalty-enhancement hate crime statute, many based on an ADL model hate crime law, which increases the sentence if the crime was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived personal characteristics.4 Under this type of law, the prosecutor needs to prove two things: (1) that the perpetrator committed the crime and (2) that he or she committed the crime because of the victim’s race, religion, or some other personal characteristic.

So returning to the vandalism example above, if a perpetrator was arrested, a prosecutor would have two choices. If the prosecutor chooses to simply charge the perpetrator with criminal damage to property, he or she would only have to prove that the defendant threw the brick though the window. Alternatively, the prosecutor could proceed on the hate crime charge and seek higher penalties. The state would then have to prove both that the perpetrator threw the brick through the window and that he or she had done it intentionally because of the victim’s religion. In this case, the words on the brick would provide strong evidence of the perpetrator’s motive. Assuming that the state could prove both elements of the charge, the perpetrator would be subject to higher penalties, likely resulting in a longer period of incarceration.

4 Different states have different protected categories. As of June 2006, race and religion are included in the hate crimes law of all 45 states, but only 32 state statutes include sexual orientation, 28 states include gender, and 32 states include disability.

Hate Crimes Data Collection and Prosecutions: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[catzmeow]

"Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of penalty-enhancement hate crime statute, many based on an ADL model hate crime law, which increases the sentence if the crime was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived personal characteristics.4 Under this type of law, the prosecutor needs to prove two things: (1) that the perpetrator committed the crime and (2) that he or she committed the crime because of the victim’s race, religion, or some other personal characteristic.

Given this, why are you so sure we need additional laws?

Have these laws decreased crimes against gays/lesbians? The homeless? race-related crimes? (the answer is: NO)

Instead of doing a cut/paste job, perhaps you could simply answer the simple questions above.

 

[Sky Dancer]

"Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of penalty-enhancement hate crime statute, many based on an ADL model hate crime law, which increases the sentence if the crime was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived personal characteristics.4 Under this type of law, the prosecutor needs to prove two things: (1) that the perpetrator committed the crime and (2) that he or she committed the crime because of the victim’s race, religion, or some other personal characteristic.

Given this, why are you so sure we need additional laws?

Have these laws decreased crimes against gays/lesbians? The homeless? race-related crimes? (the answer is: NO)
Instead of doing a cut/paste job, perhaps you could simply answer the simple questions above.

1. The Anti-Defamation League speaks eloquently to the question of why hate crime legislation is necessary:

"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."

2. You asked and answered your own question. Hate crime laws do not decrease crime. They increase the penalties for the crimes. That's the whole point.

3. "Henderson and McKinney (Matthew Shepard's murderers) were not charged with a hate crime, as no Wyoming criminal statute provided for such a charge. The nature of Matthew Shepard's murder led to requests for new legislation addressing hate crime, urged particularly by those who believed that Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation.[19][20] Under current United States federal law[21] and Wyoming state law,[22] crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not prosecutable as hate crimes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

 

[catzmeow]

"Henderson and McKinney (Matthew Shepard's murderers) were not charged with a hate crime, as no Wyoming criminal statute provided for such a charge. The nature of Matthew Shepard's murder led to requests for new legislation addressing hate crime, urged particularly by those who believed that Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation.[19][20] Under current United States federal law[21] and Wyoming state law,[22] crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not prosecutable as hate crimes."
Matthew Shepard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for using Matthew Shepard as an example. Prosecuting his case as a hate crime would not have increased the perpetrators' sentences by a SINGLE DAY because they were already sentenced to LWOP. The end.

You want to throw these cases out to titillate and horrify, and yet, the fact of the matter is that in these horrific instancees, hate crimes legislation would have no impact on sentencing.

My point stands: The only people who support hate crimes legislation are those who have no understanding of the criminal justice system.

People like you...well-intentioned idiots.

 

[Sky Dancer]

"Henderson and McKinney (Matthew Shepard's murderers) were not charged with a hate crime, as no Wyoming criminal statute provided for such a charge. The nature of Matthew Shepard's murder led to requests for new legislation addressing hate crime, urged particularly by those who believed that Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation.[19][20] Under current United States federal law[21] and Wyoming state law,[22] crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not prosecutable as hate crimes."
Matthew Shepard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point stands: The only people who support hate crimes legislation are those who have no understanding of the criminal justice system.

Many people support hate crimes legislation with a clear understanding of the criminal justice system. Hate crimes are violent and dangerous manifestations of prejudice.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (the Matthew Shepard Act) would expand federal protection against hate crimes to acts committed under any circumstance, as opposed to acts committed only when an individual is engaged in certain federally-designated activities, such as voting.

The measure allows the attorney general to issue grants to cities and states for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Anyone with a clear understanding of the criminal justice system would know it takes money to prosecute crimes.

 

[Amanda]

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.
Why Are Conservative Christians Fighting Hate Crimes Legislation? | Friendly Atheist by Hemant Mehta

From your link:
Only a few groups would have the balls to oppose legislation intended to protect victims from hate crimes.

I guess you disagree with the article you linked, since you agreed with Catz that the laws don't protect anyone, but only provide more penalty.


I think it's interesting that you keep making sweeping statements about religious people. It's nice when people wear their bias on their sleeve.

 

[catzmeow]

From your link:
Only a few groups would have the balls to oppose legislation intended to protect victims from hate crimes.

I guess you disagree with the article you linked, since you agreed with Catz that the laws don't protect anyone, but only provide more penalty.

It's funny since I'm not even a Christian, and yet I see hate crimes legislation for the absurd mockery it is. It protects NO ONE. I think Sky has the idea that if these laws are passed that she will somehow be safer. She won't.

The sort of people who assault or kill someone because he/she is gay aren't going to care about having that year tacked onto their long sentence.

 

[Luissa]

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.

I actually knew a homeless person burned to death, I am all for them adding longer sentences.