8117. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:23 PM PDT
arky
I will get back to you as well, my love. Preliminarily, modern day conspiracy laws can take care of your concern, without need of redundant hate crime legislation.
8119. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:27 PM PDT
vK,
"Cal - If a person kills people because they are blond then the person is simply psychotic. If a person kills people because they are Jewish, then there is an underlying societal element to the psychosis; Jews are recognized as hate targets in our culture, blonds are not."
To me, anyone who kills out of hate could be arguably psychotic. The root cause of the psychosis matters? I can see defense attorneys proving easily that hey, their client's nuttiness was of the simply variety, with no underlying societal element involved.
But more to the point, I'm uncomfortable with the "recognized as hate targets" aspect. Is that how it works? (I truly don't know). I remember Spud saying that black on white hate crimes are punished--are white people "recognized as hate targets"? Or did I misunderstand Spud?
8120. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:31 PM PDT
CalGal: Currently, the parameters are for crimes that target victims according to race, religion and ethnicity. Thus, white people can be recognized as targets of hate if they are targeted because they are white. The Wyoming case demonstrates compelling reasons to add "sexual orientation."
8122. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:33 PM PDT
CalGal:
Yes, Jews are recognized as hate targets in our culture and blonds are not. And this is news to you?
8123. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:33 PM PDT
Thanks, Spud.
So, vK, it doesn't seem as if it is due to "recognized target of society".
I should also say that as long as hate crime laws exist, I think sexual orientation should be added as a parameters immediately.
8125. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:35 PM PDT
Sigh. "parameter".
8127. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:37 PM PDT
CalGal:
"So, vK, it doesn't seem as if it is due to "recognized target of society."
Yes, it does. Did you read Spudboy's post?
8128. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:38 PM PDT
Mathew Shepard - Today's Impeachment Thread is dedicated to you. May you have eternal rest.
8129. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:43 PM PDT
That's a nice thought, jexster. Escarbro mentioned a vigil for Matthew Shepard in Washington D.C. tonight. I don't know if there's one where I live, but when I do the Arizona AIDS Walk this Sunday, I'll be walking for Matthew, too.
8131. KurtMondaugen - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:45 PM PDT
CalGal
"I remember Spud saying that black on white hate crimes are punished--are white people "recognized as hate targets?"
No, and if I understand all this correctly, neither is any other particular group, really. The main issue here being racial conflict in general; the particular races of the victims and the perpetrators are not as important as the question of whether or not a particular killing was racially motivated. Which pretty much leaves blondes out of the picture. Race, ethnicity and religion being areas protected from discrimination. Given that sexual orientation is one of the last things society finds discrimination against acceptable, the hate crime legislations would send a necessary message to not only the murderers of homosexuals, but to those elements of society which condone and perpetuate such actions, either directly or indirectly.
8132. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:49 PM PDT
REALITY CHECK
In Weimar Germany, Nazi SA beat Jews because they were Jews; gays because they were "sick"; Communists and Socialists because they were, well, pinko preverts. Those were hate crimes no different than KKK lynchings in Mississippi, no different than what happened in Jaspar TX or in Laramie Wyoming.
Maybe one small difference, our ancestors in hate couldn't match the cowardly duplicity of the Christian Coalition. They called a spade a spade and acted bravely in accordance with their beliefs. Yes indeed, hate crimes do occur. Hate crimes should be punished for what they are. If, that is, one has the courage of her convictions.
8133. charcomm - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:51 PM PDT
Gray area. Lots and lots of it. That's what in my view clouds the Clinton impeachment issues. Nothing is black or white, right or wrong, certain or unsure...everything with it remains in motion..and we still don't know what lies ahead. Unless one is a rigid robotic mimic of a human, one can see at least a glimmer of one's self in some character in this entire mess. Makes one feel sort of queasy and uneasy insofar as "judgment" is concerned.
Why not see what else comes to our attention, wait for the appropriate time, and then make the best decision possible based on all information available as well as our Constitution, and our personal experience and conscience.
8134. trouserPilot - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:51 PM PDT
"But in the first place, I like clean systems. So if we are to punish hatred, I'd rather it be established evenhandedly...."
...the heart of many people's problem with this subject, I suspect. Guess what: our society isn't a "clean system." In the real world, messy situations occasionally call for messy, uneven solutions.
Keep pushing for that perfect society, though! I'm sure you'll find it some day!
8135. Judithathome - Oct. 14, 1998 - 4:54 PM PDT
charcomm: What a novel idea...waiting for all the facts to come in before making a final judgement.
8136. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:01 PM PDT
CalGal cuts, if not to the chase, damn close to it:
"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."
Boba craves public humiliation. I crave humiliating him.
Is there a shrink in the house?
8138. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:04 PM PDT
jexter -- That's why I suggested bobo rent "Salo." Saves YEARS of therapy.
8139. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:06 PM PDT
Well, lets go from the just curious to the heavier stuff in that order.
108.5redux in his post 1860 provides many a detail about muggings in his neighborhood and how diverse they were and the motivations for same. Quite detailed. - in his "New York" neighborhood. Really? Since when? Is that the only part of the post that is suspect?
PsE - Although interesting in the abstract, I don't think that fear that someone might be accused/convicted of having committed a hate crime when it was really an indiscriminate attack against someone who happened to be in a "protected" category is terribly relevant as a practical matter. For all of the hate crimes with which I am familiar, there is always a need to determine intent - in other words, whether there was a desire to get a particular target based on some type of proscribed hate category. Granted, there "can" be mistakes in determining whether there was the requisite intent - from the prosecutors all the way up to the juries. No different than criminal law considerations generally.
I also want to third what Eliot and Kurt have said that a (large imo) part of the value of having hate crimes laws on the books is in the overall message it sends throughout society that 'discrimination' is wrong and that this is a wrong recognized as same by society. Hopefully this helps mold attitudes as well as create deterrents against hate crimes.
8140. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:11 PM PDT
Labarjare et al.:
Funny that you guys think that the relatively minor sentencing enhancements will have some kind of deterrent effect, when you'd be the first to wail that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
Isn't it fun to shape the facts to whatever position you support? It's kind of like sculpure!
8152. Random - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:20 PM PDT
We have not yet solved or resolved how to handle sexual predators, child molesters. Complaints are filed against law enforcement because molesters do not want to report their addresse to police or neighborhood notification if they move into an area.
The same laws against hate crime that apply to everyone cover gays and lesbians. Enacting a special law to grant special privilege to a small minority group invites that small minority group to unreasonably inflict their will upon the larger group in the form of recruitment or otherwise.
Granted, hate crimes will continue, but the recourse under the law is determined by the evidence in each case to establish degree of guilt.
At very least, the guy in Wyoming was murdered by bullies who had an unfair advantage over him. The same applies to the man in Texas that was dragged to death or killed then dragged, same happened to our soldiers in Somilia whose bodies were dragged through the street and dismembered even after death, same with Rodney King beating, the Reginald Denny beating.
There is enough race baiting, gay and lesbian baiting, women against men baiting, black against white, wealthy against poor, and so on going on in this country it issurprising they can get past each other on the streets without punching each other out. Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters are race baiters. Clinton is a racebaiter.
The political hate baiters are as bad. Newt Gingrich is the antithesis of Bill Clinton. Clinton having the bully pulpit has, with his goons and media spent 6 years of hate baiting against Newt Gingrich. We understand that as Clinton representing the communistic takeover of America, and Gingrich's agenda to save Americans from that. Gingrich suggest the return of the peoples earnings, and Clintons ferociously battle to get our money.
Thus, the atmosphere of hate wafts across the land. Clinton and Gingrich is about self-aggrandizement, very personal.
8162. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:26 PM PDT
Why aren't women recognized as targets of hate if they are targeted because they are female?
8167. trouserPilot - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:30 PM PDT
Azure,
Some women are targeted just because they're whackjobs, irrespective of their gender. No, I don't have anyone in particular in mind.
Boba
You ought to be careful in those bathhouses. You might slip and break your blaster.
8177. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:37 PM PDT
trouserPilot -
Do you mean you believe some women deserve to be targeted but gay men never deserve to be? That seems to be the general consensus.
8178. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:38 PM PDT
cllrdr. Don't forget, tP has seen a picture of Scooter. Granted, it was a trick photo in that his red car was made much larger and he was shrunk, but hey, character comes through.
8180. trouserPilot - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:38 PM PDT
Azure
I'm not really having a serious discussion here. But, no, the second half of your contention does not accurately summarize my belief. Please drop it. Or address someone else. Thanks.
8182. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:40 PM PDT
Azure - it is with some trepidation that I venture forth like this, but your leap of logic about gays and womens and targets is both breathtaking and disturbing.
8184. Philistine - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:42 PM PDT
Azure -
Actually, I think you are correct. Women ARE frequently targets of hate crimes, and those who commit those crimes should be acknowledged and treated as the repulsive bigoted vermin that they are. Might I suggest an anthill party for the guilty?
8185. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:42 PM PDT
Cal:"Well, then you get into the deal of punishing blonde haters. If we say as a society that it is worse to kill out of hate for an attribute than it is because of greed and anger, then the hatred is the operative word. If the fear in a community matters, then all communities matter. It is when you single out the communities that are to be protected that the CR analogy stops being relevant and AA kicks in."
How does punishing blond haters come into play? The Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based on race, creed, et al. We have already established that members of minority groups are in need of legal protection. All we are talking about now is whether crimes against these same groups motivated by hatred against these groups should be punished more heavily as an extra protection.
Honestly, most of the arguments made here against hate crime laws could also be made verbatim against civil rights laws. I don't think they hold up in either situation.
8188. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:44 PM PDT
Sorry, I didn't mean to spoil the party. I had been reading messages from a couple of hours ago when I posted.
8192. Philistine - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:49 PM PDT
Oh, maybe. But I'm an ant-hater myself. Honestly, they all look alike to me.
8193. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:49 PM PDT
labarjare -
It isn't my leap of logic. I've been trying to gain a bit of insight into why it is a fact that beating a gay man to death because he is gay is so much more hateful to our society than beating a woman to death because she is female.
8196. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:51 PM PDT
Well, it's my first post here so I might as well jump in head first.
Why should the punishment for a crime depend on the reason it was committed? Why should someone who kills for no reason receive a lesser sentence than someone who kills in a pattern?
Since when is justice served by making the punishment a function of the cause du jour?
Don't misunderstand --- a crime is a crime and should be punished as such. But as a member of an under-rights-entitled minority (white males) I resent the hell out of the taking of my life being deserving of less punishment than the taking of a protected minorities'.
So there.
8197. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:52 PM PDT
Correction: make that "white hetero-male."
8199. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 5:57 PM PDT
azure - this whole business about hate crimes is, of course, not in the right thread, but let me just say that I for one would find any crime against a gay or a woman that was characterized as a hate crime equally vile. I don't think that I am unique. If anything, unfortunately, you might find more people who would be upset because a woman was attacked out of hate than someone who is gay.
8204. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:03 PM PDT
109109, A powerful reason, in my mind, for making certain hate crimes violations of FEDERAL law is that historically the criminal laws were not enforced effectively in cases of crimes against minorities and in a significant number of instances the local law enforcement officials were actually involved in the hate crimes. The only way the laws were ultimately enforced was by US Attorneys and the FBI pursuing federal law violations of the civil rights of individuals. Everyone has seen movies and read about these cases. Eventually the local law enforcement people began to see the light, recognizing that if they didn't enforce the criminal laws the feds would be on their ass.
Now it is not only African American Americans who have experienced this problem. Last year when I was living in Washington, DC, the roomate of the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia was found to be guilty of extortion against gays. His modus operandi was to get the license plates of cars parked at gay bars, especially those with visible indicators, eg a child seat, that the owner was married and lived in the suburbs. He would then get the person's name and call him to extort money by threatening to reveal his homosexuality to his spouse or employer. After the extortion was exposed both he and the Chief Larry ??? lost their jobs. Now if the Chief of Police in our nation's capital and one of his top deputies (not sure the Chief was involved in the extortion of gays) exhibit this kind of behavior what are the chances that gays will get the same protection under the law as everyone else in the community?
In my mind, the purpose of federal hate crimes legislation is not to provide greater protection for minorities but to insure that at least in the most egregious cases federal action is possible, if necessary due to local prejudice or ineptitude. It is clear that local prosecutors tend not to move with as much alacrity against perpetrators of crimes against gays as they do, f
8205. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:03 PM PDT
Fellow Fraysters,
I come not to embarrass BoobooFett, I come to BURY him!
8206. ptboya - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:06 PM PDT
"Why should the punishment for a crime depend on the reason it was committed?"
Adam…Duuuhhhh! That's so elemental a question it's telling that you framed it as a rhetorical question. Someone who steals a loaf of bread (does this sound familiar… stop me anytime) for her starving children is judged differently than (ohhh? you've heard this before. Right, it just slipped your mind. Carry on)
8207. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:08 PM PDT
Wonkers2,
Two wrong do not a right make. If local law enforcement is committing crimes, or simply not doing their job, then that crime should be punished. Granting the Feds the authority to do the locals' jobs for them is not the solution. That only address the symptons, and only a precious few of those.
8208. ptboya - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:08 PM PDT
Naw, Gingrich would find a way to wrest defeat from the jaws
of vicory.
Or… the vicar.
8210. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:09 PM PDT
for example, in crimes against children by pedophiles, or alleged pedophiles or in the case of crimes against the majority or dominant group in the community. There is are differences in the politics of law enforcement that should be apparent to anyone who reflects on it.
By the way, I don't recall being impolite to you. I try to avoid unprovoked personal attacks. If you are referring to my calling ValGal an airhead, why don't you let her defend herself as best she can, as you are willing to do for the victims of hate crimes? We have been going back and forth almost since the Fray started. She is capable of defending herself without the benefit of legal assistance.
8214. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:19 PM PDT
Sorry, AdamSelene, read your history. Granting the Feds the authority to prosecute for violations of civil rights was the only way that convictions were obtained in many cases in the South. Either the prosecutors wouldn't prosecute or the juries wouldn't convict. Finally, the message got through. I know you wish the Federal government would just go away. But don't hold your breath!
8217. ptboya - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:26 PM PDT
For Chrissake Selene. Who killed Goodwin, Schwerner and Chaney? Do you remember? Who stood in the door of the school to block integration? Recall that? Well I could go on, but the answer is… the law. Yes, that's right, the local authority. Surprise!!! Local authorities can run amok too.
8219. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:28 PM PDT
wonkers2 -
What do you think? Does it seem reasonable to you that beating a black man to death because he is black is treated as a hate crime while beating a woman to death because she is female is not treated as a hate crime?
8221. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:32 PM PDT
What do you think, ptboya? What if she just gets the shit beaten out of her for being female, but is not killed? Should that be viewed as a hate crime, in your opinion?
8222. AuNaturel - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:34 PM PDT
"Why should the punishment for a crime depend on the reason it was committed?"
How else do you demonstrate a pay off to a politically important group? You put them on the list of people whom it is extra special bad to hate....
Only a fool, a bigot or someone on the take worries about
motivation for why a murder was committed or who the victim was
when creating law. Dead is dead whether it was for hate or for
insurance money. The victim sure doesn't care.
8223. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:34 PM PDT
Weird party.
8224. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:37 PM PDT
I think I need a drink. Goodnight all.
8225. thomasd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:43 PM PDT
C'mon, Wonkers & Ptboya. Answer Azure's questions instead of talking about what is or isn't in your pants.
8226. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:45 PM PDT
JJBeiner, I am glad that we are in agreement on the issue of hate crimes. Your post confirms my suspicion that your days in the GOP are numbered. Let us know when you are ready for the really and truly BIG TENT. I can tell you are really a democrat at heart. Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson and Trent Lott, et al, just aren't your kind of guys.
8227. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:54 PM PDT
wonkers
I guess I don't follow your logic that an indifferent law enforcement apparatus that would ignore crimes such as assault, battery, or extortion when perpetrated against homosexuals would hop to it to enforce a hate crime statute that is significantly more difficult to prove (not "You threw a brick?" but "You throw a brick and you had the motive of clunking a gay man while throwing that brick").
The DC Police Chief was Larry Soulsby.
I was concerned about your politeness because you appeared to getting a little fed up with me, and I am very fragile.
8228. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:54 PM PDT
wonkers2,
Uhh, since when were civil rights' violations equivalent to hate crimes? (And then why do we need *new* laws?)
8229. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:54 PM PDT
now wonkers2 is my kind of optimist.
8230. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:59 PM PDT
so, 108.5redux - what is this stuff about your New York neighborhood?
8231. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:59 PM PDT
Let's say that I hate assholes. Let's say that I'm in a mall, and an asshole crosses my path. Being an asshole in my own right, I pull a gun and start shooting.
A) I shoot the asshole who pissed me off.
B) I shoot into the crowd and kill a non-asshole.
Question: Does A deserve more punishement than B? Why?
8232. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:01 PM PDT
Azure, They are both hate crimes and both should be subject to the same punishment. However, I don't believe that the case of the woman being beaten to death is covered by most hate crimes laws, but I am not sure about that. I have not said that the punishment should be greater for a hate murder than for a regular ole garden variety insurance murder. On the other hand, 109109's attempt to equate graffiti with swastikas and burning crosses is clearly mistaken. Burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray painting swastikas is a more serious crime than defacing a building with ordinary graffiti. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
In any event, I do see some transitory need for state and federal laws against hate crimes. Once the local authorities start to pursue these crimes effectively the need for Federal enforcement will disappear. And once, through education and authentic and enlightened religious and political leadership prejudice against minorities (and gays)withers away as it eventually will, he need for hate crimes laws will disappear. My strong personal preference is for crime to be handled locally, not by the FBI or any other federal authorities. Because of the misguided politics of drugs and crime in this country, the budget and employment in the Justice Department has expanded out of control in the past 20 or so years, in my opinion.
8233. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:03 PM PDT
Hey!
I've got an excellent idea!!!
Let's create equality by treating people differently based on their catagory du jour! Ya, that's the ticket!!! We'll treat people according to their race or sexual persuasion and that will create a climate of equality!!! YES!!!!
8234. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:03 PM PDT
Adam
They are not. Civil rights violations are separate codifications for new civil or criminal offenses. Hate crime statutes are parallel to criminal statutes already on the books, but they add greater punishment for motive or thought during commission of a crime. They are rarely prosecuted (less than 100 federal prosecutions total), there are approximately 10,000 per year, but they do have symbolic value.
In the grand scheme of things, though this is an interesting debating point, they are a pimple on the tick on the ass of a rhino.
8235. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:06 PM PDT
Lab
You misread. That was one post of several setting forth an essay by Nat Hentoff on the issue. I live in Virginia, with my guns.
8236. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:12 PM PDT
wonkers
The emotionalism of your point is established in your post to Azure. You sweepingly claim that a rock through a window of a house for the purposes of destruction is lesser than a swastika on a synagogue. While I agree, it is an interesting transposition of your own moral code onto the general criminal law. No thanks.
And Azure segues to a true fraud of hate crime legislation: determination of motive. All rape of women, it appears, is a hate crime unless you can show that the rapist also forces himself upon men. Then, of course, it would appear to be more benign?
So, a rapist of solely women gets 25 years (20 for rape, 5 for violation of the hate crime statute) and serial rapist of both men and women gets a mere 20. And the rapist who preys solely on black women? 30, I presume.
8237. labarjare - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:13 PM PDT
gee, I must have missed the quote marks. Virginia is for lovers, not guns. But, we all make our choices in life.
8238. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:16 PM PDT
109109, They might not hop to it, but if there is a state law, the state police might do a better job and if there were a federal law under which a charge of violation of the homosexual's civil rights could be brought by a US Attorney after an investigation by the FBI, as history in the South showed in the case of crimes against civil rights workers and blacks generally, the effect would be salutary, even though the actual number of cases might be small.
As I already posted, the reasoning of the opponents of anti-hate laws and anti-affirmative action laws for that matter, is fallacious in claiming preferential treatment when the goal of both is equal treatment. In the South crimes including murder of civil rights workers were not being investigated and prosecuted effectively. The federal law makeing such crimes violations of the victim's civil rights helped assure that the perpetrators of these hate murders and assaults were brought to justice. There is no historical basis for claiming that these individuals, many of whom were dead anyway, received preferential protection of the law. That is turning the facts and logic on their heads. The same would, in my opinion, be true if hate crimes against homosexuals were included under the federal law. As above, my first preference would be effective local law enforcement. A federal law would help achieve that objective, in my humble opinion.
Ah yes, good old Larry Soulsby. How could I forget? I hope his replacement is better.
8239. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:21 PM PDT
wonkers
It is D.C. The replacement is redundant.
This has been fun. I believe we have given the issue a good inspection. I now retire to nitpicking and sniping.
Good nite all.
8240. CalGal - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:22 PM PDT
Rask,
Message #8185
As for blondes, I was just using the extreme example David Tutor gave. But I really do fail to see the distinction between different types of hate if the purpose is the damage or fear a crime does to a particular community. And the civil rights analogy doesn't work for me.
There *is* a penalty if a crime is committed--regardless of whether it's hate, love, greed, or anger that was the source of the violence. We're talking about adding an additional penalty for certain types of crimes.
And Azure's point is right on target. Is rape a hate crime?
8241. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:24 PM PDT
109, yep.
Hey, I've got another idea!!
We all know that some groups were discriminated against in the past, right?
Well, let's say that they were each deprived of $17,000 worth of rights in equivalent value. (or whatever. Plug in your favorite number.)
Therefore, when those with the same surface features of those who did the original depriving meet one who has the same features of the deprived group in the streets, we should give them our share, say 35 cents.
Anyone who resembling the original oppresors who doesn't contribute, goes to jail.
Fair enough?
8243. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:30 PM PDT
And yet another great idea!!! (I'm full of it tonight...)
Let's say that your grandfather killed my grandfather, and your grandfather was never caught and is now dead. Now my brother, not being too bright, kills someone who looks like your grandfather. You, on the other hand, just killed someone for their wallet.
To be fair, my brother should get a stiffer penalty, right? After all - he killed someone because he looked like someone else. He didn't have a good motive like the one who just wanted their money.
8245. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:42 PM PDT
109109, Of course, my claim that a swastika or burning cross is more serious and completely different from painting Kilroy was here is a "transposition of my morality." Kilroy graffiti has one criminal element--damage to private or public property which costs something to remove. While the swastika has two criminal elements, one which is the same as Kilroy and costs the same to repair or remove plus a second which cannot be so easily removed--the insult/threat/fear/discouragement/humiliation, etc visited on the members of the synagogue (and the shame visited on the supposedly civilized community.) This second element is much more serious than the first, and it has nothing in common with the crime of simple defacement of property. Is that so strange and hard to understand? To me it is a simple commonsense opinion or judgment which I share with the majority of Americans, once they stop to think about it. And now we are debating whether or not to incorporate that moral judgment into the criminal law. I have explained why I think it should be incorporated. Maybe I haven't read your posts closely enough, but it is not clear to me at this moment what your objections are.
It shouldn't be neccessary for another Hitler to anihilate 50 million gays and lesbians in order for the majority of Americans to feel the same way about their situation as I believe the majority does about hate crimes against Jews. Attitudes toward homosexuality has not been influenced either by a monster like Hitler nor by a saint like Martin Luther King Jr. Instead they are being demagogued by the likes of Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson and their pulltoys like Trent Lott in the GOP.
8248. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
Cal: You are assigning a purpose to hate crime laws that I never stated. I believe their purpose is to make a societal statement that hatred based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., is wrong.
Azure's argument is moot. Rape is certainly a hate crime. But since all victims of rape are the victims of that hate, there isn't much of a point to having different sentence structures for a class of non- hate victims that do not exist.
There is a persistent confounding of arguments that these laws lead to gays having more rights than straights, or blacks having more than whites. This just isn't the case. For example, in the Supreme Court case affirming hate crime laws, the defendant was black and the victim was white.
8249. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998
- 7:58 PM PDT
wonkers2,
"Of course, my claim that a swastika or burning cross is
more serious and completely different from painting Kilroy was
here"
Well, duh. I guess we do need hate crimes to protect against
threats. Current laws don't cut it, since threats are otherwise
equivalent to protected free speech.
Here's a dime. Buy one.
8250. AdamSelene - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:05 PM PDT
Hey, ANOTHER great idea!!!
It seems that some states have laws on the books that they don't enforce.
Therefore, let's pass a federal law the authorizes the FBI to enforce all state laws! Ya --- that's the ticket!!!
All those state sodomy laws still on the books.... hmmmmm.... Let the feds handle 'em.