Hate crimes: Include sexual orientation?

[Athelwulf]

I've been doing some political research, and it seems there are some people that are against including sexual orientation in the definition of what a hate crime is.

I'm wondering what the reason behind this is. To me, there seems to be no contest. Why shouldn't sexual orientation be included?

Will someone enlighten me about why people seem to be against it? Then we can debate it.

Thanks.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf.

P.S. Tiassa, is this thread okay in EMJ, or should it be in Politics? It was a tough decision to make.

 

[Facial]

Ethnic background is relevant and only relevant to hate crimes because being gay is an acquired preference, and fits with the malicious content of one's mental character. Crimes against gays are like crimes against gangsters and other criminals.

(note: if that argument sounds weak, it is because I am still in the process of trying to emulate the thoughts of my opponents. )

 

[Repo Man]

Not quite the topic at hand, but to me the whole concept of hate crimes is two wrongs to make a right. I don't see how it makes it worse that someone beats a gay man because he hates gays, vs. someone who administers just as brutal of a beating in the process of robbing a gay man (while not knowing, or caring that his victim is gay). Both deserve the same punishment.

 

[Roman]

I think there's a difference between those who actively seek out beating minorities, and property related violence.

Wars about resources have never been as strongly condemned as warring for genocide. Whatever the reasoning behind these beliefs, I think they're the same.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

I think, Repo, the idea has something to do with the presumption that the "hate crime" would not be taking place otherwise. The guy who happens to be robbing someone, well, if he's robbing someone, he's robbing someone, and the statistical likelihood of who that someone is becomes an abstraction. If it happens to be a gay man ....

To the other, if one intentionally targets old women for purse snatchings, does that become a hate crime?

If I beat a black man, or a gay man, or whomever specifically because of a given label, it suggests that I would not be otherwise committing a crime against people if it was not for some ridiculous prejudice.

Consider the infamous Metzger case. Tom Metzger was convicted in relation to a racist beating. (1)

The people who actually administered the beatings and fatal blow went out seeking specifically to harm someone specifically because of their ethnicity.

It raises an interesting question in rape cases, as well.

Part of the problem with hate-crime legislation to date is underscored by the Apprendi verdict. (2)

From the Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey:

After Apprendi pleaded guilty, the prosecutor filed a motion to enhance the sentence. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was racially motivated and sentenced Apprendi to a 12-year term on the firearms count. In upholding the sentence, the appeals court rejected Apprendi’s claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The State Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: The Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Pp. 7—31.

Legal Information Institute

I have no objection to hate-crime legislation, and even encourage it, if it is held to its own proper standard of law. None of this backdoor crap.
____________________

Notes:

(1) Anti-Defamation League. "Tom Metzger's Long March of Hate". June, 1993. See http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/adl/tom-metzger/adl-metzger

(2) Supreme Court of the United States. "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, #99-478". June 26, 2000. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-478.ZS.html
​

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I thought the "hate crime" concept was mocked to death pretty much as soon as it was concieved. I didn't know anyone still took it seriously.
I guess you learn a new depressing reality of humans everyday.

 

[Tiassa]

I thought the "hate crime" concept was mocked to death pretty much as soon as it was concieved.

The only problem with that is that the hecklers pretty much missed the point.

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

Âðelwulf,

In the state of Missouri sexual orientation is listed in the law here is the law itself and the way it reads:

557.035 Hate crimes C/D Felony
1. For all violations of subdivison (1) of subsection 1 of section 569.100RSMo, or subdivison (1),(2),(3),(4),(6),(7) or (8) of subsection 1 of section 571.030, RSMo, which the state believes to be knowingly motivated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability of the victim or victims, the state may charge the crime or crimes under this section, and the violation is a class C Felony.
2. For all violations of section 565.070, RSMo; subdivisions (1),(3) and (4) of subsection 1 of section 565.090, RSMo; subdivision (1) of subdivision 1 of section 569.090, RSMo; subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of section 569.120, RSMo; section 569.140, RSMo; or section 574.050, RSMo; which the state believes to be knowingly motivated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability of the victim or victims, the state may charge the crime or crimes under this section, and the violation is a class D Felony.
----------
Terms
(2) Sexual orientation, male or female hetrosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression, or having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with ones gender.


But thats just in the state of Missouri, I am sure if you get a copy of our laws in reference here and submit them to your state rep you could very easily have these laws brought into effect in your state.

 

[Repo Man]

If a beating has enhanced penalties because of what the perpetrators motives are (or are presumed to be) you've created a thought crime.

I do not believe that someone deserves a more severe punishment because of what they were thinking while they comitted a crime.

 

[Nasor]

Why is it worse for me to be motivated to kill my neighbor because of his ethnicity than for me to be motivated by any other random factor? Is it ‘worse’ for me to hate him because of his skin color than for me to hate him because I don’t like his clothes, or the way he always throws loud parties?

 

[Tiassa]

If a beating has enhanced penalties because of what the perpetrators motives are (or are presumed to be) you've created a thought crime.

"Ohhhh! He'p me! He'p me! It's a thought crime! Oh, he'p me!"

Why is it worse for me to be motivated to kill my neighbor because of his ethnicity than for me to be motivated by any other random factor?

Is there a difference between a black man walking down the street and one boffing your wife?

Is it ‘worse’ for me to hate him because of his skin color than for me to hate him because I don’t like his clothes, or the way he always throws loud parties?

I would go with the bit about clothes. With the loud parties, you're simply choosing the wrong solution to the problem, which can be considered a legitimate offense called disturbing the peace or some-such.

Of course, part of the problem is people who think such things are solutions. Really, if liberals treated the conservatives the same way, threatening violence whenever they don't get their way, we would have whacked a good number of our conservative neighbors.

Consider civil rights: if these were equally protected under the law, there would be no need for hate-crime legislation.

It's petty equivocation and bullsh@t that leads us to a discussion of, "What if someone offends me by their actions? Isn't that the same as their offending me by merely existing? Isn't someone going out of their way to offend me by having a loud party or wearing a loud shirt exactly the same as me going out of my way to be offended by the mere fact of their birth."

Think of it this way: Why is it worse for me to fire my neighbor from his job because of his skin color than it is for me to be motivated by any other random factor, such as poor job performance or theft of company property?

If you can't tell the difference, well, maybe we've identified part of the problem.

Should I fire you because you're a woman and thus need to be barefoot and pregnant at home? Or because you're a workplace idiot and hazard regardless of gender?

Don't equivocate. Think.

 

[Nasor]

Think of it this way: Why is it worse for me to fire my neighbor from his job because of his skin color than it is for me to be motivated by any other random factor, such as poor job performance or theft of company property?

If you can't tell the difference, well, maybe we've identified part of the problem.

Should I fire you because you're a woman and thus need to be barefoot and pregnant at home? Or because you're a workplace idiot and hazard regardless of gender?

In this analogy you’re comparing legitimate firing with illegitimate firing – I’m comparing illegitimate crime with illegitimate crime. I don’t have problem with considering a person’s motive when determining their punishment, but I don’t see why racial hatred is an especially ‘worse’ motive than, say, killing for profit or killing in order to cover up a crime.

 

[cato]

two cents:
Isn’t almost every violent crime a hate crime? When I hate someone and beat them up, what makes it a regular crime if they are my same race, and a hate crime if they are not my race?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

A good way to analyze laws is to turn the consequences upside down. A white man hates a black woman because she's black, so he kills her. He gets a life sentence without parole. A white man hates my wife (a white woman) because we live in a nicer house than his family does, so he kills her. He gets out of prison in twenty years. That sounds really unfair to me.

I am opposed to the concept of hate crimes.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

In this analogy you’re comparing legitimate firing with illegitimate firing – I’m comparing illegitimate crime with illegitimate crime. I don’t have problem with considering a person’s motive when determining their punishment, but I don’t see why racial hatred is an especially ‘worse’ motive than, say, killing for profit or killing in order to cover up a crime.

I'm looking at the cause. There are many causes for crime. "Hate crimes" are particularly extraneous, compared to everything else out there.

Should there be degrees of murder? What makes one dead person different from another? Should we make allowances for the hatred one feels in "the heat of passion" when killing someone in a fit of jealousy? Is there a difference between Ted Bundy and your average gang-banger? Is there a difference between a guy who thinks he's stealing to feed his family and believes himself having no other available options and the rich kid out stealing for a lark?

Why not take a completely featureless view of crime and punishment and intent?

Do we really need "terrorism" laws? Why won't charging folks with murder, extortion, &c., work?

Should the guy whose pretense of self-defense turns out to be erroneous be treated the same, in court, as the man who killed someone for the satisfaction of killing a black man?

When I hate someone and beat them up, what makes it a regular crime if they are my same race, and a hate crime if they are not my race?

Well, why do you hate them and beat them up? It's not likely that you'll be attacking that person simply because of their ethnicity.

A white man hates a black woman because she's black, so he kills her. He gets a life sentence without parole. A white man hates my wife (a white woman) because we live in a nicer house than his family does, so he kills her. He gets out of prison in twenty years. That sounds really unfair to me.

Demonstrate that the man who kills your wife did so specifically because of political concerns, and yes, you should see the same result.

Would we throw such a chap in the psychiatric ward? Shock therapy and heavy meds? I'm all for treating the racists, theocrats, and sexists who act out their malice criminally in the same manner.

There does need to be some consistency, but I do recognize the unique nature of "hate crimes": A crime that would be happening anyway is still a crime. A crime that is happening specifically for reasons relating to certain extraneous reasons ends up being called a hate crime. I have no objection, either, to making "hate crimes" mere federal civil rights cases.

Hate crime seems to be held as a unique category, somewhere between an idiot committing a crime and a psychopath plotting a next victim.

If the way we measure the result of crime and punishment is "personal satisfaction", we will end up with a very ineffective, but pleasantly simplistic, criminal justice system.

 

[§outh§tar]

I thought tolerance of all opinions included tolerance of bigotry? Or is there a double standard?

 

[Athelwulf]

Thanks for yer input, everyone. Unfortunately, ye'r missing the point of the thread.

This is a thread about why some people seem to think sexual orientation shouldn't be included in hate crime laws, not the laws themselves.

 

[Cowboy]

If a beating has enhanced penalties because of what the perpetrators motives are (or are presumed to be) you've created a thought crime.

I do not believe that someone deserves a more severe punishment because of what they were thinking while they comitted a crime.

I agree. If someone murders an innocent person, I don't give a shit how or why they chose their victim. They should be set up on a blind date with "old sparky".

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

Athelwulf, sorry I missed your point, But I agree that they should be in place, they are in place because the courts look at what the normal everyday person would do in respect to the situation. As far as hate crimes go the average person walking down the road would not stop and beat the crap out of a person because the was wearing a shirt saying they was gay and proud, but a person that that is racist would or would at least try, thats what the courts look at when determining the law. I do believe they should be in place to prevent those types of crimes we have enough violent crimes to contend with and enough people in prison to deal with if these laws help to prevent it in a few cases thats just more of the tax payers money saved.

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

Originally Posted by Repo Man
If a beating has enhanced penalties because of what the perpetrators motives are (or are presumed to be) you've created a thought crime.

I do not believe that someone deserves a more severe punishment because of what they were thinking while they comitted a crime.



well here we go if a person commits the crime of murder they can be charged with first degree or second degree about the only difference is the person thought the crime out and that is a enhanced penalty do you think we should do away with that no I do not think so laws are created for a reason sometimes not the best but they are there, I do not agree with numerous laws myself like child support laws they are a civil law that has been made criminal, they punish the non-custodian parent in too many ways I have seen this just about every day dealing with these people, first they suspend there drivers license so if there job skills involve driving or having a drivers license they make them unemployable resulting in further debt and finally issuing a warrant for that person because they can't pay then they send them to jail and when they get out they are in even more debt, some system they have set-up there.