what if you steal bread because your staving vs stealing 100,000 because your a greedy banker?
Hate Crime Laws are Stupid
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
what if you steal bread because your staving vs stealing 100,000 because your a greedy banker?
The obvious
Haven't you ever heard of the gay panic defense?
The gay panic attempt was attempted, unsuccessfully, in the Matthew Shepherd case; it also failed Jonathan Schmitz, in the infamous Jenny Jones Show murder. A variation deadlocked a jury for one of three defendants who found out, after the fact, that the teenager he had sex with was biologically male. And last year, it won a reduced conviction for a killer:
And also last year, the gay panic defense won an acquittal for Joseph Bidermann:
Imagine if women could shoot men just for coming onto them. It could be called a "rape panic defense". Maybe you could go out shooting black people, and cite a "gangsta panic defense".
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Gay panic defense". December 28, 2009. Wikipedia.com. December 30, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
Spaulding, Pam. "Michigan: 'gay panic' verdict - manslaughter, not murder". Pam's House Blend. April 11, 2008. PamsHouseBlend.com. December 30, 2009. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/5041/
Vitello, Barbara. "Jury finds Biedermann not guilty in stabbing death". The Daily Herald. July 10, 2009. DailyHerald.com. December 30, 2009. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306242
Baron Max said:
Haven't you ever heard of the gay panic defense?
The gay panic defense is a legal defense against charges of assault or murder. A defendant using the gay panic defense claims that he acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of a little-known psychiatric condition called homosexual panic.
The gay panic attempt was attempted, unsuccessfully, in the Matthew Shepherd case; it also failed Jonathan Schmitz, in the infamous Jenny Jones Show murder. A variation deadlocked a jury for one of three defendants who found out, after the fact, that the teenager he had sex with was biologically male. And last year, it won a reduced conviction for a killer:
Steven Scarborough was charged with felony murder and faced mandatory life in prison without parole in the death of 62-year-old Victor Manious.
Scarborough admitted in taped police interview that he hit Victor Manious with a bat, stuffed him in a car trunk after either 1) he was come on to, or 2) he woke up to find Manious performing oral sex on him, and in either scenario Scarborough felt that this violated his beliefs as a Southern Baptist, justifying the bat attack and all the rest of it -- including the theft of Manious's wallet and mobile phone. The Southern Baptist convictions of Scarborough also made him use the man's credit cards for shopping sprees, gas and air fare to Texas.
Manious was alive when stuffed into the trunk -- medical authorities said he would have survived if 911 had been called at the time Scarborough was "out of danger."
(Spaulding)
Scarborough admitted in taped police interview that he hit Victor Manious with a bat, stuffed him in a car trunk after either 1) he was come on to, or 2) he woke up to find Manious performing oral sex on him, and in either scenario Scarborough felt that this violated his beliefs as a Southern Baptist, justifying the bat attack and all the rest of it -- including the theft of Manious's wallet and mobile phone. The Southern Baptist convictions of Scarborough also made him use the man's credit cards for shopping sprees, gas and air fare to Texas.
Manious was alive when stuffed into the trunk -- medical authorities said he would have survived if 911 had been called at the time Scarborough was "out of danger."
(Spaulding)
And also last year, the gay panic defense won an acquittal for Joseph Bidermann:
Sobs erupted in the courtroom Friday as a jury found 30-year-old Joseph Biedermann not guilty of murdering a Hoffman Estates neighbor, who died after being stabbed 61 times ....
.... Biedermann claims he killed Hauser in self-defense after Hauser threatened to sexually assault and kill him in the early morning hours of March 5, 2008, in Hauser's home in the 2200 block of Hassell Road in Hoffman Estates. Biedermann testified that he stabbed Hauser with Hauser's own medieval-style dagger as the two men struggled ....
.... Biedermann claimed that Hauser invited him back to Hauser's apartment several hours after they met for the first time at a neighborhood bar near where both men lived in the Barrington Lakes Apartment Complex. Both men were intoxicated. Toxicology reports indicated Hauser's blood-alcohol content was .277; Biedermann's was .226.
Clarke refuted Biedermann's charges, saying the room showed no signs of a struggle. No chairs were overturned, wine glasses remained upright on a coffee table, and two video game guitars remained undisturbed. He also contrasted Biedermann's minor injuries to Hauser's 61 stab wounds including significant wounds to his jugular vein, lungs, kidney, pancreas and abdomen, any of which could have caused his death.
(Vitello)
.... Biedermann claims he killed Hauser in self-defense after Hauser threatened to sexually assault and kill him in the early morning hours of March 5, 2008, in Hauser's home in the 2200 block of Hassell Road in Hoffman Estates. Biedermann testified that he stabbed Hauser with Hauser's own medieval-style dagger as the two men struggled ....
.... Biedermann claimed that Hauser invited him back to Hauser's apartment several hours after they met for the first time at a neighborhood bar near where both men lived in the Barrington Lakes Apartment Complex. Both men were intoxicated. Toxicology reports indicated Hauser's blood-alcohol content was .277; Biedermann's was .226.
Clarke refuted Biedermann's charges, saying the room showed no signs of a struggle. No chairs were overturned, wine glasses remained upright on a coffee table, and two video game guitars remained undisturbed. He also contrasted Biedermann's minor injuries to Hauser's 61 stab wounds including significant wounds to his jugular vein, lungs, kidney, pancreas and abdomen, any of which could have caused his death.
(Vitello)
Imagine if women could shoot men just for coming onto them. It could be called a "rape panic defense". Maybe you could go out shooting black people, and cite a "gangsta panic defense".
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Gay panic defense". December 28, 2009. Wikipedia.com. December 30, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
Spaulding, Pam. "Michigan: 'gay panic' verdict - manslaughter, not murder". Pam's House Blend. April 11, 2008. PamsHouseBlend.com. December 30, 2009. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/5041/
Vitello, Barbara. "Jury finds Biedermann not guilty in stabbing death". The Daily Herald. July 10, 2009. DailyHerald.com. December 30, 2009. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306242
Scaramouche
Registered Member
What about it? Determine a penalty based on the value of goods stolen. Say, one day per dollar or something. However, if you're lucky, the owner of the bread may choose not to press charges.
Bells
Staff member
Hello Lucy!Lucysnow said:
They are being tried for the crime they committed.
If a person kills, deliberately assaults or incites violence or hatred against another person based on personal bigotry, then it is a crime and it becomes a crime under the legislation. Not all State jurisdictions allowed for crimes such as inciting hatred or violence against another person or group. The new hate crime laws were deemed necessary as a result and supported by a majority of the general population, especially when one considers what happened outside of the court during his killer's trial.
The hate crime laws that everyone is protesting about now have existed for a long time, with very little protest or comment. The new laws, which everyone is protesting about, now offers the same federal protection to homosexuals as well as women and disabled people simply because not all states offer such protection.
The hate crime laws are not a deterrent. Just as the death penalty is not a deterrent. But it is, by it's nature, a law that looks at people's motives and if that motive happens to be bigotry, then if the State's hate crime laws does not cover it, the perpetrator can be tried under the Federal laws.
The hate crime laws does not just cover violence Lucy. It also covers inciting hatred or violence against others.
And that is something that not all States cover. For example, during Shepard's funeral and the trial of Shepard's killers, the killer's supporters (led by Fred Phelps), stood outside with signs and yelling and inciting violence against homosexuals. None were arrested. Why? Because at the time, Wyoming did not have legislation to cover inciting hatred or violence towards homosexuals.
For murder yes. For inciting violence or hatred against others was not plain and in some instances, did not exist at all, in that people in some States (Wyoming is a glaring example) could openly incite violence or hatred against homosexuals and there were no laws to prevent them from doing so.
Motive has nothing to do with the punishment. Motive only has influence on which crime one is to be arrested for and/or tried for.
Read LucySnow's comment on motive, it'll help you understand. I'll copy it for you here:
"... Motives are relevant yes especially if you are trying to ascertain whether a crime was an accident or provoked but what does this have to do with sentencing? Whether you shoot someone because you want their money or because they are black the motive is secondary to the fact that a life was taken."
As to your scenarios above about the bread theft? ...ask yourself; What is the thief being arrested for .....NOT what's his motive.
Baron Max
And, Tiassa, for all your hard work on that post, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "hate crimes" designations for particular crimes. Tiassa, a "defense" is something that happens in a courtroom ....long, long AFTER the suspect is arrested for some crime. The defense is not what's important here, it's what he was arrested for.
Baron Max
So what's with this stuff, Bells? Are you now saying that none of the stuff you posted previous, about Byrd's dragging death or Matt Shepard's murder, is pertinent and factual? ...that your big issue is now that you don't like to allow people their freedom of speech in accordance with the Constitution of the United States?
So ......it's now your stance that the "hate crimes" law is not for Byrd's killing or Shepard's killing, as you alluded to earlier, it's now because you don't like people protesting and using inciteful language?? ...LOL! You're a hoot, Bells!
Baron Max
Bells
Staff member
And you suffer from the inability to read and comprehend what you are reading.
How does this make hate crime laws stupid ?
I think that the idea of hate crime is it is essentially pre-meditated.
Pre-meditated murder is treated different than a fight where someone got killed for example.
It should be legal to hate whomever you wish, but you don't get to beat the crap out of them. That should be assault regardless. But the pre-meditated part typically makes it worse in the laws eye.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I'm not arguing about what the majority of people want. I'm not sure if the majority of people really think Hate Laws necessary. I'm arguing about the logic and effectiveness of such laws. Laws against inciting violence have already existed in the judicial system. I have no problem with laws against incitement but this has nothing to do with sentencing. Why should a crime against a minority be any more harsh than a crime against anyone else? It must mean that the sentencing are not harsh enough already OR it is believed that a harsher sentencing would prevent such crimes and it doesn't. Hate crimes show a lack of faith in the 'system' but new laws will not change a cultural deficiency in a 'system' if it is really corrupt and unwilling to investigate certain crimes (which I am not convinced is the case)
Bells
Staff member
Hate crime laws cover the deficiencies that existed in State Laws.
What makes you assume that the Federal Laws provide a harsher punishment or sentencing? Quite the contrary, in some instances (from memory) it does not. What it does provide is a greater ability for FBI to investigate and collate information on hate crimes around the country. The new laws were drafted to ensure that women, homosexuals, the disabled, as some examples, were now covered along with anyone else who was already covered. It also gave the federal authorities the power to investigate and collate the figures of hate crimes against homosexuals, women and the disabled, as well as homeless people.
The existing laws at the time did not provide protection for homosexuals, women, the disabled and homeless people, while it provided protection to ethnic groups, religious faith, etc. The laws, as they now stand currently, were extended to provide protection against incitement of hatred and violence against the few groups of people who were left out. Protection and laws against inciting hatred and violence against some groups of people were not covered by the judiciary and it was made blatantly obvious at Shepard's funeral and at the trial of his killers when some stood there inciting hatred and violence against all homosexuals and their families and friends, and not a single thing could be done about it because there were no laws in place that made it a crime to incite violence against homosexuals.
There is this belief that 'AMG.. they're going to get harsher sentences under this Federal Law'.. They actually will not.
Does it reflect a lack of faith in the system? I don't think so. I think it is reflective of the fact that some States have been slow in ensuring all their citizens were protected under their own hate laws. They have also been slow to report and in some instances, they fail to report entirely.
Bells, you've made that same or similar comment several times now. Where in the USA did laws exist that did not cover crimes against the people you've mentioned above?
You previously went to some effort to invoke the memory of Matt Shepard's brutal murder as well as James Byrd's dragging murder. Both of those crimes were murder crimes ...there was/is no need for another law.
Again, so you won't try to cover it up with so many nonsensical words of passion and self-righteousness .....show or prove that there were states in the USA that did not have laws covering people as you've mentioned above. You also said above that there were "deficiencies" in state laws ....please show evidence or proof of that assertion and of the deficiencies in state laws.
Okay, now ...what ARE hate crimes? Were the murders of Shepard or James Byrd classified as "hate crimes"? Should they have been "hate crimes"? Would those murders be classed as "hate crimes" if they happened today?
How does the FBI know when a crime should be classed as a "hate crime" if they don't investigate the crimes? How does the FBI know when to muscle in on local police investigations?
So now, after all that posting you made earlier, ...now you're saying that the "hate crimes" law only covers incitement to hatred and violence? That those laws have nothing to do with crimes like the Shepard or Byrd cases ....as you so often discussed in your earlier posts?
So now, I guess, we have the real crux of the "hate crimes" law ....and it really is just the Thought Police at work. It's now just a new limit to out Constitutional rights to free speech ...and our rights to hate anyone that we might want. So see, after all of the posts, all of the anger and, yes, hatred, that occured in this thread, "hate crime" laws are simply limits to our freedom of speech (and an attempt to make all people exactly the same!).
Baron Max
Max, if you think there aren't and shouldn't be limits on free speech, you need to stand in a crowded movie theatre, and shout 'FIRE!' or shout 'I'm going to kill you!' at the president, or tell lies about someone famous, and after all of these acts of 'free speech' I'm pretty certain you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the law.
So that said, freedoms need to be used wisely, and sometimes legislated for the common good.
See, there's a difference between say Fred Phelps et al holding placards that say 'God Hates Fags' and 'Kill all Fags'. The latter would be a hate crime. The former just a measure of Phelps delusions.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
So we should only be free to say stuff that doesn't upset anyone?
Perhaps you're right, Phlog. Perhaps Bells is right, too.
And obivously, as we speak about this issue right here and now, the government of Iran is busy putting strict limits on the "rights" of free speech and of public assembly. The people are "inciting" riot and the end to the present government of Iran, so ...hell, incitement like that needs to stop immediately and the perps arrested and imprisoned.
So if the USA follows that example, and Bells and others seem to think that we should, then the "hate speech laws" are great and wonderful things for a gov to force onto its people. Iran is doing it. Saddam did it in Iraq before we stopped him. Saudi Arabia has similar laws. The Taliban would institute it if they ever came back into power in Afghanistan. And there are other nations that do it. Geez, maybe there really is somthing to be said for a government to limit the right of their citizens?! Lots of places are doing, so it must be a good thing?
Baron Max
We hate 'hate speech' laws in the UK. We aren't a Police state yet. Your fears are as misplaced as your comparisons.
The operative word there is ....yet. Germans said the same things in the 1930s in Germany.
The UK has been treading along happily for umpty-eleven years on the way to pure-de-ol' socialism ...and to me, that necessarily means "police state". You can't have socialism without large and adequate police forces to enforce all of the socialist rules and regs.
Yeah, I'm sure Iran's president Imadinnerjacket is telling the people of Iran in his public addresses. ...as his police are breaking up all of the riots and illegal assemblies and arresting those who are inciting riots and violence against the state of Iran.
Baron Max
Max, only a few posts ago I posed a few scenarios, shouting fIRE!, threatening th President, saying libellous things, ... your 'free speech' is already curtailed by authorities, you are in no less danger from big govt than us. We just go one step further and make it illegal for Skinhead assholes to wave placards threatening people, or Muslim Clerics advocating violence and jihad. The laws work well, and like I said, your comparisons are as misplaced as your fears.
On freedom Max, in the UK, we don't get nervous armed cops telling us to keep our hands of the steering wheel when we get pulled over. Our cops aren't routinely armed. You made the comparison to Germany in the 30's. those oppressors there, armed or unamred, Max? Who is closer to a Police state, therefore?
Yep, that's what the gov of Iran is telling the world right now as they proceed to put down the citizen protests and riots. The gov of Iran just went a little further, that's all. ..don't need them thar' damned freedom thingies anyway, the gov will take care of y'all. Just sit back and relax, this won't hurt a bit.
See how well you're trained? See why the cops don't need guns in the UK? Yeah, y'all just do whatever the gov says ...no guns needed. In a few years, the gov will take away a some more of your freedoms and you'll justify it just like you're doing now. Then more, then more,..... And soon you won't have any freedoms at all, but you'll have justified losing each and every one of those silly freedom thingies.
Don't need no stinkin' freedom anyway! As long as the gov gives its citizens want they need, who needs them stinkin' freedoms?
Baron Max