Does Wyoming have laws against murder? Is it illegal to murder a gay man in the state of Wyoming? If the answer to those questions is yes, then charging the murderer with a hate-crime serves no purpose other than to punish him or her for having unpopular social views.
There is a contradiction there. If it is illegal to murder a gay man, then you are punishing the murderer for having "unpopular social views".
Your acting as if there are vast areas of America where people of certain races and sexual orientations aren't covered by the same laws that protect everyone else. Is there some place in America that officially classifies crimes against certain groups of people as less serious simply because of their race, sexual orientation, etc.? If so, where is it?
Certain races and sexual orientations often provided the murderers with what was legally deemed a valid defense. I would suggest you read the transcripts of the defense used by Shepard's killers to see what I mean.
The reason for the hate crime laws is because in some instances, the local police will refuse to investigate a particular crime because of their own bias. One such example has already been provided in this thread. The hate crime laws allow the FBI to step in and investigate and prosecute where such an event occurs.
The hate crime laws also allows law enforcement to investigate and arrest people who incite hatred. I'll give you another hint.. the biggest opponents to the law are Christian groups who protest that it is their first ammendment right to protest or incite hatred against homosexuality and homosexuals or to denounce homosexuals or homosexuality.
Baron Max said:
And the "hate laws" designation did all that? When? How? Bells, I'm going to have to ask you for some further evidence of that statement. I'm just so sure that there were already laws in place for all of that. If you can show otherwise, then I'm definitely going to be damned surprised.
A question that was already answered previously, with links.
Learn to scroll up.
So in Wyoming, prior to the Shepard crime, there were no laws against a bunch of people torturing and killing another person??? ...we had to add a new federal law against it?
The law now to includes protection for homosexuals and transgender people, and I believe, homeless people as well, which some states did not provide for. So to use your argument, homosexuals and homeless people were special prior to this because were not protected by State laws.
So you think homosexuals are somehow special, and we should give them special treatment under the law? Why? What makes homosexuals so much more special than just regular ol' people?
The laws now also give homosexuals the same rights that every other class or group had under the previous law. Homosexuals were "somehow special" prior to this law because they did not have that protection. Get it now?
And no laws covered homosexuals before the new "hate crimes" law was passed? Before the law, anyone could od anything to a homosexual and it was permitted under the law???
Refer to above.
If the victim had been white, would that killing have been permitted? It was okay to drag white guys to death in Jasper, Texas, but when you drag a black guy to death, then .....we must call it a "hate crime"?
*Sigh*
Does the term 'strawman' mean anything to you?
Yes, I think it was racism and discrimination that prompted the attack and the murder. But it's also racism and discrimination to use racism and discrimination in the trial ...which should be completely clear of racism and discrimination.
Hang on. You think it was racism and discrimination that prompted the murder, but you don't think that motive should have been mentioned at the trial? You think it is racist and discriminatory to provide evidence for their motives?
Or perhaps, Bells, you want to use racism, bigotry and discrimination in order to fight racism, bigotry and discrimination? Is that it? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?
No Baron. I think if someone's motive for a crime should be brought up in court and the jury left to determine whether the person is guilty of that crime.
But apparently, if the person's motive is racism, bigotry or discrimination, you somehow believe that it should not be brought up or investigated because it would be racist or discriminatory against the accused to do so.
I think to have brought it up in the trial would have been prime examples of using bigotry and racism and discrimination to unduly influence the jury.
No my speshual little man. The jury needs to know what the motive for the crime was in order to convict or not convict. You are basically arguing that there should be no trial at all and that a person's reasons for committing a crime should not be looked at. For example, lets just say that you are accused of shooting an intruder in your home. If we were to use your line of argument, your motive for shooting the person should not be factored into at all.. ie. the fact that you shot the intruder in self defense should not be looked at or brought up in your trial. Get it now? Or are you suggesting that the only time that motive should not be investigated or brought forth in a trial is if it involves racism or bigotry.. which is racist and bigoted in and of itself.
Bells, do you think that it's okay to use racism and bigotry to fight racism and bigotry? Please, if you answer no other question or point, please answer that one. Do you think that it's okay to use racism and bigotry to fight racism and bigotry?
Explain to me how investigating the motives for a crime is somehow racist or discriminatory?
I do not think it is racist to tell a jury and provide evidence of a criminal's motive, regardless of whether the crime is one based on racism, bigotry or not.
Does it, did it, matter? The suspects were already found guilty of the vicious, cruel, horrendous murder.
Why do you think they were found guilty? Do you realise that their motive was brought in as evidence to convict them? Oh wait, you think that's racist.
