Hate Crimes

Shale, the fear you speak of - is the same as my own. And I don't think anyone can truly understand it, unless they have experienced it themselves. That's why Matthew Shepard's tragedy - literally haunted me for years. It still haunts me. I know the fear he felt. And it is horrendous.

And it was much worse in his case, because his killers pretended to be gay-friendly. He trusted them. And they betrayed that trust by beating him bloody with a gun, and leaving him to die on a fence post. Jesus, they even stole his shoes. In comparison, I consider myself one lucky dude. He was so young. And nobody deserves to die as he did. I wrote a poem about him, but I don't think it's appropriate to post it on the internet. Anyway, the poem managed to find its way in one of my crazy little books.

--QP

 

Right on! Damn, I miss Janis (she always had a way of speaking the truth - despite popular opinion).

--QP

 

Brilliantly stated! And I especially like how you and Shale - sum it up in concise and compelling words. Most folks have short attention spans: Thanks to current television programs.

--QP

 

Not a problem, Duck. I can see the bigger picture. Your heart is in the right place - and that's what counts most to me. So don't sweat the small stuff. You're cool in my book.

--QP

 

Christ, that is horrible. Just goes to show that homophobia is still very much a reality in America. Reducing the charge - is all too common in cases like this. And it saddens me that more folks don't see the injustice. Thanks for the info.

--QP

 

i think it's called a hate crime because the sole motivation for it is hatred/despise for the people attacked. i don't think it's worded like that because of political reasons.

 

Yeah I hate crimes too. Smoking marijuana should not be a crime.

 

"Hate Crimes" are a different kind of crime than say - beating the hell out of someone because they spoke to your girl. Both assaults - but very different. The law allows for many nuiances in criminal charges - assault-aggrated assault, 1st degree murder-second degree murder-manslaughter and on and on.

Bottom line -crimes against individuals to frighten or harm individuals are very different than crimes to intimidate whole groups of people. I come from Mississippi and lynching was very different than a knife fight in a bar. A lynching was aimed at a whole group of people (blacks) - actually two crimes - murder and intimidation.
Hate crimes are unique - they not only harm a person - they are done to keep gays, blacks, muslims and on in their place.
A crime is not just a crime - murder for revenge and murder to intimadate a whole segment of society("Hate Crime")are different and need to be treated as such.

 

Actually, Thedawg's post showed me why that hate crimes do deserve more attention, and this post explains it pretty well too. I also wonder if people who do hate crimes would be more likely to do repeat offenses..

 

This is a very perceptive analysis of why hate crimes are unique. I agree that a strong message is part of the reason for the crimes: i.e., black folks and queers are inferior to the majority, and don't deserve to live. They are hated because they are different.

--QP

 

I can't see how anyone can argue with the term ''hate crime''. If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it's a duck. When someone is assaulted or murdered, a motive is always looked for in relation to it. The ''hate'' in ''hate crime'' is merely the motive behind the crime. Motive is already used to create a gap between first and second degree murder, so I hardly see the difference. I find it weird that the person who had a problem with the term ''hate crime'', seemingly had no problem with there being a distinction made between 1st and 2nd degree murder. Arguing that all murder is ''the same'', as a means of discrediting the term ''hate crime'', but then not minding the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder seemed a tad hypocritical to me.

The motivation for the murder PURELY being someone's sexuality, or gender identification does give the crime an air of premeditation, in which case it's status should be first degree murder. All that the ''hate'' is, is the motive for the crime. And I think to argue that someone who is murdered purely for something like sexuality has nothing to do with hate, is just naive, and stupid. If someone is murdered in an act of random violence, the ending of that act is no different to a ''hate crime''. But the motivation is different, and that's all that ''hate'' indicates.

As I stated before, random violence can happen to anyone. Hate crime can only happen to certain minority groups, so there is a difference. And I think the only way to acknowledge the bigotry behind that specific act, is for a specific term for that act to be there.

 

My guess is that most would. However, Matthew Shepard's killers got life in prison. So perhaps this will help to send out the message that harming someone because the person is queer - is something the law now takes very seriously. Especially if the attack is so severe that the person dies.

--QP

 

Right on. I think some folks cannot see the distinction, because they believe murder is murder - why should a specific term be created for minority groups. When the reality is (as you stated) hate crimes only happen to certain minority groups. There really is a huge difference.

--QP

 

At the risk of sounding uneducated, I would say that a black person being killed because they are black, and a black person being killed for his money are the same. They carry a different emotional significance due to the fact that it is more horrific when you see the motive. But in a court of law all judgements should be made completely impartially, this impartiality must also apply to the emotional nature of the crime, or the legal system turns into nothing more than mob lynching.

I'm aware that mob lynching is effectively what "hate crimers" are doing, but eye for an eye doesn't really hold up in a rational society.

 

I don't think any court should be in the business of trying to judge the thoughts of anyone. To do so is too close to the concept of "thought crime". If a crime is committed punish the person for the crime; not what he was thinking at the time. Hate crime laws are really just a way to allow the federal Government to step in if they don't like the existing state crime laws. Attacking anyone because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation is despicable and needs to be punished but hate crime laws are, in my opinion, just dangerous.

 

You propose to get rid of "first degree" and "second degree" murder?

Would you propose the penalty for those guilty of murder to be 25 years in prison or life in prison?

So, I don't like you because of your opinion and wait in the bushes until you walk by and hit you in the head with a baseball bat. You're dead.

Or, I don't like you at our baseball game and tell you about it. You punch me in the nose and I take a baseball bat and hit you in the head. You're dead.

What punishment should I get in both cases. 25 years or life in prison?

(disregarding that at my age it would be the same penalty - consider a 20-year-old hit you in the head in both cases)

 

Indeed. And that's only one of the reasons Matthew Shepard was so opposed to the death penalty. The irony is that his compassionate belief system - actually helped to save the lives of the two men responsible for his own brutal death: Matt's parents chose to honor their son's wishes (the dudes that killed him initially received the death penalty). But Matthew's parents argued that he would not support such a decision. So his killers were allowed to live - because Matt did not believe in an eye for an eye. Life can be very ironic.

--QP

 

Nice comparison. :iagree:

--QP

 

I can see how it's frustrating, but I don't agree with the death penalty either. Although I don't think 25 years is sufficient, life imprisonment - you're there until you die. Or until you can prove beyond any doubt that you're completely rehabilitated. But yes, life does have a cruel sense of irony, perhaps it's there to prove that the current system doesn't work?

 

The death penalty is a mistake. It seems hypocritical to me that the government can legally kill people, while citizens are punished for it. However, I think that life in prison (and I mean that literally) - is justified in extreme cases. Certain folks cannot be rehabilitated. So they should remain in prison. It seems to me that the only purpose in legally killing people - is that it is cheaper. And I think that is a most sorry excuse.

--QP