7918. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:44 PM PDT
I think the word hypocrisy should be tatooed on everyones forehead these days. Everywhere I turn I run into it. It's here, it's there, it's everywhere!
Politicians, in particular, should be required to wear tinted glasses that flash the word in front of their eyes every 10 seconds.
I'm beginning to believe we should all start from the assumption "Okay, where's your hypocrisy hiding today?".
7920. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:46 PM PDT
And for that matter, it should be tattooed too!
7921. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:49 PM PDT
Niner,
"Saying something twice does not make it any more intelligible. I'm reminded of lawyers who hop up and say "I vociferously object." Oh, well . . . if you vociferously object, then, sustained."
Hey. Straight out of "A Few Good Men".
But it was "strenuously object!"
7922. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:49 PM PDT
109109 - but I was simply responding to something you had said twice. My golly - you certainly don't stop at saying the same thing many times over, so why, if you think so, shouldn't the rest of us.
Write as many special laws as you want to specially penalize those who prey on the poor (and lets not forget to include the white collar buggers too - those who sell them shoddy goods on exorbitant credit terms, etc.)
This still doesn't negate from the fact that there are many crimes committed in this country where the extra, if not only, motivation is what we call "hate" (based on factors that are not economic). Why shouldn't we as a society say that we abhor this state of affairs and we will try, hopefully as one of many measures, to eradicate it by adding an extra measure of onorousness to the penalties for such crimes.
7923. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:56 PM PDT
david
Because it inches into the realm of thought, and it makes it more awful under the law to kill someone because they are black or straight (100 years) as opposed to with cash or the subject of a snuff fantasy (92 years), which strikes me as 1) useless to the victim; 2) arbitrary; 3) potentially divisive, and 4) duplicative.
In short, it is a sop, mere window dressing.
Plus, the prudential considerations I recounted to Rask.
But since it is largely ignored, my objections remain tepid.
7924. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:58 PM PDT
MsIvoryTower - I will take your posts as an effort to get this thread back on its intended track. Yes, hypocrisy oozes through every conceivable orafice and pore when it comes to the Clinton thing. But, and in some ways glancing at the new Privacy thread (where your posts have been excellent), one of the reasons we in fact know such levels of hypocrisy are present is because it is becoming increasingly impossible for anyone in the public view to hide it. Even a small point - the use of computers to input and then act as data retrievals for every vote a politician has ever made - from his or her days on a city council on up to Congress. This data can certainly be used to knock the wind out of some currently pompous view or stance which is contrary to earlier positions. (of course, this all can be easily distorted, but that indeed is grist for some other mill.)
I digress. Wildly.
O.K. Clinton should not be found guilty.
7925. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:59 PM PDT
Already have placed my considerable weight on the table this morning.
What you don't read, mark, and inwardly digest each pearl?
Serves me right. Pearls before swine and all that.
7926. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:01 PM PDT
Back to topic.
Is Atty Shippers a courthouse hack or what?
7927. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:03 PM PDT
Jexster:
What do you think of 109's suggestion that hate crime laws are an attempt to punish the mens rather than the actus? Do you think that motive should be criminalized? Do you agree with Elliot that this is no different than having different degrees of murder based upon intent, premeditation, wilfulness, or negligence?
What about NY's version of the murder statutes? What do you think of NY's version of Murder one? Is that relevant to this debate?
7928. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:06 PM PDT
109109 - ah, we are back to the perennial "why are you such a cynic?" area of contempation. Only mere window dressing? Sorry - if having a "hate" crimes statute on the books only causes, oh I don't know, 10% or less such crimes to be commmitted it is worth it. I said that this should be ONE of MANY measures. And as for the extra levels of gradations this may cause in assessing penalties for given cases, so what. Happens all the time, based on both objective factors (age) and subjective (intent, motive, etc.)
I somehow just don't quite buy this picture of yourself that you like to paint - jaded and on the sidelines. Baffling.
7929. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:06 PM PDT
"What do you think of 109's suggestion that hate crime laws
are an attempt to punish the mens rather than the actus?"
I agree. So are the Civil Rights statutes.
7930. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:07 PM PDT
109109:
I was waiting for you to haul out the "thought crime" nonsense. The law ALREADY extends into the realm of thought. The law ALREADY punishes the same criminal act differently depending on the thoughts of the person who committed it. And this isn't some new-fangled postmodern legal theory, it's always been true.
"In short, it is a sop, mere window dressing."
Really? Tell that to the hate criminals who are now spending extra time in prison as a result of this "window dresssing."
"Plus, the prudential considerations I recounted to Rask."
Those considerations the only substantive objection to hate crime laws you've offered, and I don't find them in the least persuasive (nor, it appears, does Rask).
7931. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:08 PM PDT
"What about NY's version of the murder statutes? What do you think of NY's version of Murder one? Is that relevant to this debate?"
Dunno. Don't really care.
7932. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:09 PM PDT
Is this another of your nutty quizes?
Are you mental?
7933. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:11 PM PDT
Jexster:
What is a 1L?
What is the Blue Book?
What is Sheppardizing? What's the point of it?
What are the Restatements of Law? In what jurisdictions are they the law of the land?
What does Learned Hand's famous tort equation, B = PL mean?
What does MPC stand for?
7934. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
elliot
I am glad to oblige and I hope I did not make you wait too long.
david
I am happy again that you estimate my psyche. As to the substance of your post, if I felt that hate crime legislation was truly a boon, I might have more heart for it. Since it is largely applied to deserving thugs, and my civil libertarian streak is weak, my opposition remains lukewarm, as it smacks into my fuck all criminals philosophy. But you asked for my objections.
7935. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
There was a case in VA recently in which a group of girls ganged up and beat and stabbed one of their acquaintances to death. One of the gang was black -- she was the only one to get the death penalty because she had taken the victim's watch -- murder for robbery being worse than murder for the hell of it, I suppose. My point being that at least in Virginia, there are already gradations in punishment based on motive (though I seriously doubt the girl was murdered for her watch.)
7952. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:33 PM PDT
Bubber
The case:
The Washington Post
September 29, 1997
Death Sought for Two Women; Execution of Either Suspect in Virginia Slaying Would Be First for a Female in State Since 1912
They found Stacy Hanna lying on a lonely, muddy logging road in her underwear, curled up in the fetal position as though sleeping, her hands folded under her head like a pillow. But when police turned her body over, they began to uncover one of the more violent, and unusual, murder cases in Virginia history. The 18-year-old woman had been slashed repeatedly with a razor knife, kicked, and beaten with a belt and fists. Her skull was fractured by a blow from a cinder block.
7953. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:33 PM PDT
Even more unusual than the array of murder weapons were the suspects themselves: a group of four teenagers, all female and gay. Two of them could face the death penalty if convicted, because police believe they were most responsible for the killing. If either were sentenced to die, she would be the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912.
Hanna, who died July 27, had moved from her home town of Lynchburg to Richmond earlier that month. Apparently through a mutual friend, she met two of the young women now charged with her slaying and moved into their dilapidated row house on South Belmont Street, not far from the trendy Carytown business district.
Exactly what happened over those two weeks remains unclear, but police say they believe Hanna's roommates and two other friends grew angry with Hanna for somehow interfering in one or more of their relationships and decided to teach her a lesson.
7956. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:34 PM PDT
Three of her new friends -- Damica Winckler, 18, Tracy Bitner, 19, and Kelly Ann Tibbs, 18 -- have been indicted on capital murder charges. Stephanie Cull, 18, has been charged with first-degree murder. All four teenagers have confessed to taking part in the killing, according to police and court records.
"There are times when people need to die, and this is one of those times," Winckler told Detective Rick Mormando, who paraphrased her statement at a recent preliminary hearing in General District Court here.
A preliminary autopsy indicates that Hanna was alive when her attackers left her on the logging road about 15 miles south of Richmond, authorities said. Her death appears to have been caused by a combination of bleeding and drowning on the muddy ground.
7959. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:35 PM PDT
The prosecutor, Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Warren B. VonSchuch, said he will seek the death penalty for Winckler and Bitner because of their roles in the attack, which stretched over several hours. The only woman ever put to death in Virginia's electric chair was 17-year-old Virginia Christian, in 1912.
"You just don't hear about such heinous, violent, predatory-type behavior on the part of young females," said David Botkins, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections.
That applies throughout the country. Since the 1970s, when the death penalty was reinstated, about 390 people have been executed nationwide, and only one was female, said Victor L. Streib, dean of the law college at Ohio Northern University.
7960. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:36 PM PDT
"We are very reluctant to sentence females to death and certainly to execute them," Streib said. "A factor that tends to lean toward giving [the two suspects] the death penalty is that the crime is horribly brutal."
The case has sparked concern among members of Richmond's gay community, some of whom knew the teenagers from a support group. Others fear further discrimination against homosexuals in the wake of the slaying.
"It's been very upsetting to the gay community," said Wendy Northup, president of the Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth. The slaying "tends to be characterized as a crime by gay youth. It's not an issue of gender violence; it's really an issue of youth violence."
Officials and lawyers involved in the case said they have begun to piece together what happened on the night of Hanna's death through interviews and statements from the four teenagers, one of whom led authorities to the body.
7963. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:38 PM PDT
Hanna moved to Richmond on July 4 and began rooming with Tibbs and Bitner. Through police, Hanna's family declined to discuss the case. "What I think happened, is [Hanna] came out of the closet, and they took her under their wing," Mormando said.
Tibbs, whose nickname, "Turtle," is tattooed on her left arm and right hand, had been having a relationship with Bitner, and Hanna apparently moved into the row house about the time the pair broke up, according to Tibbs's attorney, Wayne R. Morgan Jr.
"Hanna was hitting on Tibbs, and Tibbs still had feelings for Bitner," Morgan said. "Hanna was kind of getting in the way. . . . There were also allegations that [someone] was stealing some stuff, and they all assumed it was Hanna."
7969. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:46 PM PDT
The teenagers decided to punish Hanna, who had just started a waitressing job on the riverboat Annabel Lee, and invited her to go out drinking with them the evening of July 26, police said.
Later that night, the teenagers piled into Cull's gray 1993 Ford Tempo, which had a tag for the disabled. Cull suffers from a severe form of rheumatoid arthritis and spent much of her time in high school in a wheelchair, her attorney, Joseph D. Morrissey, said. She dropped out in the 12th grade after being teased about her sexual orientation, he said, and had to quit her job at a Pizza Hut because she couldn't stand up.
Morrissey maintains that Cull is the "least culpable of the four" and was caught up in the escalating violence. "The girls were upset at the victim because she was interfering in one or more relationships. I don't think they set out to kill her. It got out of hand," Morrissey said.
7970. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:46 PM PDT
According to police testimony, the teenagers drove to a popular outdoor drinking spot near the Chesterfield airport, where the beating and slashing started.
Hanna was then thrown into the trunk of the car and driven around for as long as 45 minutes, Mormando said. When Hanna would scream out, they stopped the car, and Hanna was spit on and slashed some more in the trunk, he said. They eventually drove to the remote logging road.
One of the young women suggested that they "finish what they started," said John B. Boatwright III, Bitner's attorney. "No one spoke up loudly enough to say no. I am firmly convinced that they can't believe what they collectively did and that they are remorseful."
Morgan said that Tibbs, who worked as a landscaper's assistant and has a 5-year-old child, was badly cut trying to pull one of the knives away from one of the teenagers during the attack.
7973. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:48 PM PDT
Police believe that the clothes and watch Hanna was wearing, which belonged to Tibbs, were removed so they could not be used as evidence against them. A robbery during the commission of a murder can elevate the crime to capital murder.
A fifth teenager, Claire Watson, 18, has been charged as an accessory after the fact, a misdemeanor. According to police, Watson was told about the incident by one of the suspects and did not alert police.
All the attorneys said they believe that their clients never intended to kill anybody and were not known to be violent people. Bitner was a talented basketball player in high school; Winckler excelled in bowling.
To her family, Winckler was the one who always ran from fights, said her attorney, Gregory Carr. "She had a dry sense of humor and was affectionate," he said. Streib, the law school dean, said that the brutality of the crime and the women's sexual orientation could work against them with a jury. Still, he said, given the history of the death penalty, it would be "astonishing" if either teenager charged with capital murder lands on death row.
Christian, the only female inmate executed in Virginia this century, was a black teenager from a poor family, working for a prominent white woman in Hampton as a laundress. When she was accused of stealing a shirt by her employer, an argument ensued and a fight broke out. Christian confessed to fighting and robbing the woman but didn't realize she had killed her. She was executed a day after her 17th birthday.
7976. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:53 PM PDT
Very Interesting 109. But aren't you letting emotion get in the way of the judicial process?
7978. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:54 PM PDT
Boba: as long as insults are flying, would you mind terribly if I referred to you as "Purina Sarlaak Chow"? I have wanted to do that since I first saw your name appear in a Fray thread, but the opportunity never arose.
7979. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:54 PM PDT
Jesus, Niner, that's a sad story.
7980. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:55 PM PDT
Niner
As it turned out, Winkler was the only one sentenced to death, and that was because she had the watch. I expect this one to be appealed forever, especially since the verdict was announced about the same time as a news report demonstrating that black defendents are more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendents for substantially similar crimes.
7981. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:55 PM PDT
109109, You are a smart guy. Why don't you prove you are really smart and admit you are off base on the hate crimes issue? It would be a first for the Fray in my memory for someone to be persuaded by the reason and logic of other Fraysters and actually change their mind! As an unbiased observer the others have gotten the better of you. There's no way you will convince me that swastikas painted on a synagog are just graffiti. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel sure that similar distinctions are not unusual, and they are accepted without a second thought, even by the "Christian" Coalition. It is only where gays or minorities are involved that the objections are raised. Same old sad story.
7984. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:58 PM PDT
cllrdr
I don't know. I was just clipping from a news article. I can claim no ulterior motive.
Cal
Sad, yes. But, boy, does it have all the elements for a two-night miniseries.
7986. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:58 PM PDT
Boba: damn, I was sure you would get it. Your namesake was eaten by the Sarlaak in Jedi. Hence, Purina Sarlaak Chow.
7989. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:00 PM PDT
wonkers
I just don't agree with you. I realize that it is a minority position, and I realize, sadly, that my sparkling logic has not swayed you. Were I to be convinced of the rectitude of your position, trust me, the water looks fine, I'd jump in.
7990. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:01 PM PDT
Rask:
I *thought* Sarlaak sounded sci-fi-ey, but you misspelled it so I didn't recognize it. It's Sarlacc (or Sarlaac), I think.
Big difference, I know, but I just didn't recognize it the way you wrote it.
You can call me Sarlaac Killer, because I didn't die in that stomach, I blasted my way out.
7991. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:02 PM PDT
wonkers
And to the extent you are suggesting something other than you don't agree with my position, say it.
7994. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:06 PM PDT
109109:
I don't think it's an honest, rational disagreement that's holding you back from changing sides on the hate crimes issue.
8001. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
Wonkers,
Interesting. I saw Niner's as the "reason and logic" argument; the other side as the one using values and other intangibles. Both positions were well stated. Personally, I'm not convinced that hate crime designation is a good idea, although my opposition is lukewarm. I agree with Niner's position entirely.
The other, odder, argument I would make is that, by singling out certain groups of people for protection under these laws, it could be said that we are furthering the atmosphere of discrimination. IOW, the very fact that black people or gays are protected by such laws makes it clear that the government recognizes that many people consider blacks and gays *less* than people. So anyone who *did* think that way is reassured--hey, so many people think so that the GOVERNMENT has to PROTECT them especially!
Which is one reason why I think that if we are to have hate crimes, they should be *for * attribute that causes the offender to single the victim out.
8002. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
Better yet, 109, what am I thinking right....wait for it.....NOW!?
8003. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:14 PM PDT
Bubber
No appeal. Cull got 20 years. The rest got life. Winckler got the death penalty, but it was reduced by the judge to life. All had separate juries.
8006. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:17 PM PDT
From CalGal:
"Interesting. I saw Niner's as the "reason and logic" argument; the other side as the one using values and other intangibles. Both positions were well stated. Personally, I'm not convinced that hate crime designation is a good idea, although my opposition is lukewarm. I agree with Niner's position entirely."
Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. "Entire agreement" from CalGal should strike fear into the heart of the most valiant warrior. This, after all, is the woman who thought Janet Folger on Nightline presented her case well (for those who remember that little fracas).
8008. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:17 PM PDT
Jex,
True torture, for Boba, would require you to ignore him.
Alas, that would be true torture for you, as well. But there you have it.
8010. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:23 PM PDT
Elliot,
Sigh.
As always, you confuse my comments about technique with those of content.
8014. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:30 PM PDT
CalGal - if you want to talk content, you might want to look at the last paragraph of your 8001. Something is missing is my charitable view. Perhaps one 's' too few in one place, and one 's' too many in another. Even if so, you might want to restate your idea(s).
8017. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:36 PM PDT
David,
I was talking my views on the content vs. techniques of others, dearheart. Never in my wildest reaches of arrogance would I claim much content exists in my own posts.
However, there was a "for" missing and since I'm always unclear I'll rewrite:
"Which is one reason why I think that if we are to have hate crimes legislation, it should apply to crimes in which the offender singles out the victim for any attribute--not just selected ones. "
Not that I think this will make much difference, mind you. But there you go.
8018. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:37 PM PDT
109109, Is it your position that spray painting swastikas on a synagog is the same crime as painting "Kilroy was here" on the wall of a building? Or that there is something illogical or wrong to have separate laws for dealing with each offense? Or that there is something un-American about having a law against painting swastikas on synagogs? It seems to me that one of the reasons for laws is to communicate clearly to all the kind of behavior that is considered unacceptable by society. When I was in high school in Baton Rouge talk about going "down to the levee to roll a queer" was common among boys (although I didn't know anyone personally who did it) and was not considered an unacceptable thing to say. The same thing was true about saying and doing unconscionable things about or to "niggers." Since then, the civil rights revolution occurred, a national debate ensued, laws were been passed and attitudes have changed for the better. One benefit of the federal law against violations of civil rights is that convictions have been obtained in cases where ordinary criminal laws failed.
CalGal, you are an airhead. You should try visiting some other part of the country or world outside California or a least read some history to broaden your perspective.
8020. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:41 PM PDT
Wonkers,
Lived in Saudi Arabia for eight and a half years; North Carolina for a year and a half. Travelled the world extensively as a child and teenager.
Know quite a bit about history; minored in it in college and enjoy reading it.
Since every time you try to find a rationale for my opinions you fail miserably in the accuracy category, best just call me stupid. It's cleaner that way.
Or--here's a thought--I just disagree with you.
8021. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:47 PM PDT
CalGal, sweetie gooeypiey mushface, with all due respect your expanded version is fatuous. You preface by saying that "if" we have to have hate crimes, it should be for singling out for ANY attribute, not just from a specified list. The traditional specifications really do narrow things down, don't they - gender, race, ethnicicity. Again being charitable, I don't think you thought out your thought.
Under your definition, someone picking a blond as opposed to a brunette to rob or molest or whatever would be guilty of a hate crime. Sort of dilutes the impact of having a hate crime classification. But, at least those who want to spray crowds with machine guns still wouldn't have to worry about any extra hate crime punishment.
8022. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:47 PM PDT
wonk
I've pretty much made my position clear. Yes, I believe the criminal penalty should be the same for throwing rocks at cars as for throwing rocks at synagogues. A content-neutral criminal policy.
8025. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:50 PM PDT
David,
"But, at least those who want to spray crowds with machine guns still wouldn't have to worry about any extra hate crime punishment."
Yeah, I imagine that *with* extra hate crime punishment penalties, it's real high on the machinegunner's list of concerns.
8026. vonKreedon - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:55 PM PDT
I have no idea what this has to do with Impeachment, but...
Wonker wrote,
"It seems to me that one of the reasons for laws is to communicate clearly to all the kind of behavior that is considered unacceptable by society."
To me this is exactly the argument for "Hate Crime Legislation". Ideally the government acts as an agent for society. If we recognize that there is a specific problem, such as specific identifiable groups being targetted for assault AND society wants this to stop, then it is correct for the government to pass specific laws, Hate Crime laws. If we do not do this, if we say that, to follow Wonker's line, "We already have anti-graffiti laws." then we are, as a society, relegating the attacks on groups to a common place event of no specific concern to society. It is then unclear that society really wants the behavior to stop.
If we do not specifically protect groups whose members are being attacked for their membership then we open ourselfs up to the sort of political bullying that assisted in, for example, Hitler's rise to power.
vK
8027. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 2:55 PM PDT
CalGal - you missed my point, loveydovey pottiepan. The point about the indiscriminate ratatatter was that under your sweeping definition of what should constitute a hate crime you would have to about reach that extreme NOT to have a hate crime if hate crimes were predicated on the victim being chosen by the perp for ANY attribute.
8032. davidtudor - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:01 PM PDT
well put, vonKreeden.
8034. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:03 PM PDT
Von
I understand the concern over the Brown Shirts overcoming the Weimar, but I think it misses the mark a few ways. First, should the special emphasis be placed on crimes that are largely minimal in the overall scheme (hate crimes at 10,000 last year) while simultaneously having no added punishment for crimes? Second, the groups are already protected by existing law. What happened to the boy in Wyoming was illegal, and his killers will face a death penalty without the existence of a hate crime statute. A hate crime law supplants nothing. Third, is it worse to throw a stone at a synagogue because you hate Jews or throw a stone at stranger because you are simply angry?
Both strike me as hate crimes.
8035. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:04 PM PDT
I wouldn't call throwing yourself to the floor, flailing your tentacle in the air, and demanding jexter pay attention to you or you'll simply never stop screming to be "fighting," boo boo.
Von Kreedon -- This topic lost its way some time ago, as hatred of Clinton has devolved into hatred in general -- which is to say hatred of those considered UnRepublican. That's a major ThoughtCrime in boo boo's view.
8037. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:05 PM PDT
"while simultaneously having no added punishment for crimes" should read "while simultaneously having no added punishment for crimes of greater danger to society."
8038. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:06 PM PDT
David,
No, I understood your point. It's been made before--it ain't like you're being all that original, you know. Yes, I believe that *if* you're going to have an additional penalty for hatred of a person because of an attribute, it may as well be blondeness as homosexuality. I fully expect more people would be punished because of hatred of homosexuality. And while I realize you think this is ridiculous, you contributed well to the silliness cause when you depicted a murderous machine-gunner blithely free of any fear of additional penalty awarded due to hate crimes laws.
Probably the best argument I've seen for the additional punishment is the "societal values" one. But as I said, you could argue that by virtue of the government stepping into add extra punishment because it is *so* common for people and judicial systems to ignore the crimes against these groups--we are confirming a bigoted person's belief of the numbers who agree with them. So it's arguable that it's working *against* societal values.
8039. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:06 PM PDT
Man, is it hot in here.
8040. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:07 PM PDT
109s: The essential point keeps eluding you. It is in fact worse to throw rocks at a Jew because you hate Jews because in so doing, you are victimizing not just that Jew but all Jews in your community. When you throw a rock at someone you hate, you only victimize that person.
8042. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:10 PM PDT
Hey I'm all for killing blonde Republican meat puppets! Slowly and painfully as possible. If I crush Ann Coulter with a tractor is that a "Hate crime"?
8044. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:11 PM PDT
spud
I simply don't agree with the central point. If I rob a poor person, I hate that poor person, yes. I also send out a message to all poor, defenseless persons that I hate them, and instill a mass fear in their ranks. Same with rape of a woman. Do you think that doesn't send the chill down the spines of women everywhere? But it would not appear to be a hate crime.
8045. Judithathome - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
What if you hate "people" as BobaFett said recently; would that make throwing the rock at a person a hate crime?
8046. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
CalGal: WRT you machine-gunner analogy: Hate-crimes laws are not intended to prevent these crimes before they occur (except perhaps under some specious capital-punishment-style argument suggesting deterrence from the penalty itself ... I've never yet met a criminal who thought he was going to get caught before he perpetrated the offense). Rather, these laws are intended to offer protection to the group victimized by extending incarceration and other penalties; they also are intended to reassure the victimized groups that their full participation in democratic society is valued enough to warrant added protection.
8047. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
"If I crush Ann Coulter with a tractor is that a "Hate crime"?"
My gut says no, which means the answer must be yes.
However, I'll back you all the way.
8048. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:13 PM PDT
109109:
I have to wonder if you have ever seriously thought about these issues. Your arguments seem so mechanical and naive, so uninformed by any kind of experience or understanding about how things actually work in the real world, about the particular history and texture of hatred and discrimination in America, about the reasons we have laws at all. It was this matter of perspective and context that wonkers was trying to explain to you in his post and that spudboy went into in his earlier post about the "why" of hate crimes laws, and they just seem to have gone completely over your head. There's a reason why civil rights laws ban discrimination on the basis of race rather than, say, hair color, or shoe size. There's a reason why we deem some kinds of hate worse than others. There's a reason why throwing rocks at a synagogue is generally considered worse than throwing them at car. I wonder if you'll ever get it.
8050. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 3:16 PM PDT
cllrdr
I saw her on the street the other day. Unfortunately, she was faster than my tractor.