Hate Crimes

I sympathize for the OP entirely, it gave me a taste of his shoes and it was a well detailed experience. But if you ask me, every crime against a fellow human is a hate crime, no matter the reason which inspired an act of hate. If a straight man attacked another straight man out of hate for him (regardless of the reason), why wouldn't it be called a hate crime? I know the term is meant to bring awareness to some of the potential pitfalls when being a homosexual, but it does inevitably deliver a form of inequality towards those who are attacked and not of minority. To be honest I think it'd be most helpful if terms like sexual identity and minority were forgotten, but that would probably never happen realistically. Everybody seems to want to maintain equality while being recognized as either special or different.

 

You really couldn't be more wrong. I see nothing 'special' about my condition at all, nor have I ever wished to be seen as different. All I have ever wanted, is to seen as, and treated like a normal person. But the way I was born ensured that could never happen. I wouldnt wish my life on my worst enemy, and I certainly wouldnt want it for myself. Its a horrible existence. Maybe you're right about some people, but some definitely don't see anything 'good' in being different, I certainly don't. I hate it with everything I have within me.

 

My only point really was that if people were truly begging of equality, then why are violent acts against only a few certain groups of individuals called hate crimes? Wouldn't the fact that it's a violent act imply the hate behind the crime no matter who it's being done to?

As for everything else man, There is no such thing as normal, don't hang yourself up over who you are, bring integrity to the position. You have rights that you could be acknowledging instead of being self deprecatory.

 

I can see what you mean, but in every violent attack or murder, the law attempts to find the motive behind the act. If the motive for the attack is purely down to discrimination towards something like a person's sexuality, then why shouldn't that be highlighted? I can sort of see the point in some saying that a murderer who kills a random person just for 'fun' deserves just as harsh a sentence as the person who is violent towards someone purely because of their sexuality/gender. But I cant see why some seem to want the prejudicial motive brushed under the carpet. In my opinion, it definitely shouldn't be. Bigotry and intolerance that leads to violence should be highlighted. As that is the only way it can be tackled.

Sweeping it under the carpet like the reason doesn't matter, is only making the bigotry behind certain violent acts seem like a non issue, or not important. And it definitely is important. With sentencing, I can see the point in some poeple's arguements. But making out like the bigotry behind certain violent crimes shouldn't be acknowledged, I definitely don't agree with.

I'm not saying I shouldn't have rights. I'm just saying I see nothing good or 'special' about the way I am at all. In fact, I can only see bad things about it. I was merely addressing your assertion that all people in minority groups want to be recognised as ''special'' or ''different'', as well as being equal to other people. I certainly have no desire to be seen as either of those things. I'd much rather I wasn't different. My life would certainly be much easier, and far less painful if I wasnt. Not all people like being different, or being seen as being different. Some people don't like it. As for having hang-ups about who I am, I really can't help that. I hate my conidition, and I'd much rather I didn't have it. I don't actively try not to like it, I just naturally don't.

 

Actually, with all the built-in appeals process, it costs much more to off the person than to support them for life in prison. In fact, with this depression that is still called a recession, capital punishment has taken a downturn because of economics. It is easier to convict to life in prison than to go for the death penalty.

I think the problem here is seeing the word "Hate" too literally and perhaps "Hate Crime," is a misnomer that should be changed to what it is.

Yes, every attack is motivated by hate even in the heat of the moment, but a hate crime is a pre-meditated attack motivated by a deeper hatred and is as much a terrorist act as those crazy muslims who flew the planes into the towers because they considered our Western culture the Great Satan.

"Terrorism" would be more appropriate to define what they were trying to do with Hate Crime. That is targeting a group, whether for race, religious affiliation or sexual orientation.

 

Yeah, good points Shale.

 

It's the peculiar disease of Aristotelian minds that when something isn't understood giving it a label somehow clarifies the issue. We really don't know what causes some people to kill homosexuals (and blacks and Jews and...)To say its hatred doesn't explain anything--maybe its jealousy because the killers don't have the guts to come out of the closet themselves. Rarely do the prejudiced probably have any inkling why they do what they do-prejudices and ingrown hatreds are passed between the generations with little suspicion as to their actual intrinsic worth. The genuine redneck, who is not just a poor southerner, but lives to some extent in the heart of nearly everyone, is not, nor will he/she ever be in the business of self-reflection--they kill the minority called "thinking" long before they execute actual humans...

 

Look folks, the US Fish and Wildlife figured this shit out a long time ago. Shoot a duck out of season you get a small fine...shoot a Bald Eagle you get a $10,000 dollar fine and a jail time. Even the dumbest redneck avoids shooting Bald Eagles. Its the idea of a deterent..it really works. It makes people think before they act. It doesnt make a rats ass worth of difference if you call it a hate crime or a insecurity crime or a dumbass redneck crime. Adding extra weight to a crime which is identified because it singles out a particular population will cause the casual perpetrator to pause and think. No, it won't stop crimes of passion but Matthew Shepard's murder wasn't a crime of passion. They targeted an individual whom they considered to be of little worth. Maybe they thought that everybody else felt the same way they did. It's called cognitive distortion ...fucked up thinking. Hate crime legislation puts pause to that thinking... not everybody thinks like me.

Call it whatever you damn well please, it needs to be singled out as the twisted evil that it is and punished even more vigorously to call attention to the fact that it is especially reprehensible to target someone just because of who they are. I really don't get all the rhetoric about it.

 

I still think if they had done that to Shepard because he performed abortions, or because he was black, or because he was weak and couldn't defend himself, or because they needed to rob him really doesn't matter, as you want to discourage-equally-all crimes of cold-blooded calculation that employ extreme cruelty and disregard for human dignity.

We have had a series of home invasions that targeted the elderly-they were beaten to death then robbed. Obviously they were targeted because they were >85 years old and weak. I think that is just as reprehensible as targeting somebody because they are gay-they are both horrible-only one is a "hate" crime. Why not send an equally powerful message of intolerance concerning such behavior to BOTH criminals?

 

motive

 

But you miss a key point. Sure they are targeting that group (85+) but not to itimidate the whole group. The oldsters are being targeted because they are vulnerable, just like some poor 90 lb smuck in high school who has his lunch money taken by a jock. The object not to intimidate a whole group.

That's what make hate crimes so heinous - they are used to put a whole segment of society in their place. To teach them a lesson. To make them feel less than human and to hide in fear because of who they are.
A whole segment of the population!! Not because they are weak or helpless or easy victims but simply because they are a perceived threat to - be the white supremacist, nazi's, jocks whose manhood is threatened and the like.
The results might turn out the same - but lynching is a different crime than home invasion.

 

I completely agree with the above poster.

 

I am not missing a key point...You want law to be based on what you SAY someone is trying to do-I want it based on what they have actually done. They do in fact intimidate every elderly person around, if you think not I do not know where you are getting your information, nor do you know that they aren't trying to do that-you simply do not know and have said nothing to convince me that you have x-ray vision into the motive of others. You're law is based on supposition-too irrational for my taste...

 

By the way, if you think beating an 85 year old to death with a hammer for a couple of bucks is the same as a bully stealing lunch money, you might need a refresher course in moral sanity...

 

Now, I think YOU missed the whole point of that specific post. Ddoright did NOT say he thinks "beating an 85 year old to death with a hammer for a couple of bucks is the same as a bully stealing money..."

What he said was:

He was relating vulnerability of two disparate groups not relating that the crimes were similar. You might need a refresher course in reading comprehension.

 

This is an excellent analysis of the reason for the term: Hate Crime. I sort of see it like this: Why was somebody like Anne Frank -- murdered at the age of 15? Was it robbery? No. Was it motivated by rape? No. The only reason Anne Frank died in a concentration camp (along with most of her family members) was because they ALL were Jewish. And Hitler wanted to make it clear that all Jews were beneath contempt (in his warped opinion).

So six million Jewish people lost their lives. Along with several hundred thousand gypsies, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and anybody else that Hitler perceived as "vermin" to be exterminated. That is pure hatred. Period. So why is it so difficult to see that certain minority groups are targeted for not being like the majority? It has absolutely nothing to do with special rights. It has everything to do with so-called "outsiders" being condemned to death by the majority. Consequently, I think the term hate crime -- makes perfect sense when you take a long peek at the history of hatred based on race and sexual orientation (just to name two groups of folks -- historically hated by the majority).

--QP

 

Perhaps it's denial? I've been reading a lot about how difficult it was to actually get Anne Frank's diary published. At the start, no publishing house wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole. Otto (Anne's father) had to ultimately agree to leave out some of the most important parts of his daughter's diary -- or else risk never seeing it published.

After the diary became a huge best seller ( and a popular play and film "based" on the diary - grossed millions), Otto was tarred and feathered for allowing his daughter's diary to be edited in such a heavy handed way. But he had no choice. He wanted his daughter's words to be read by the world (as Anne also wished, before she perished in the holocaust), and it seems that the world was not quite ready to read the complete diary of a very gifted 15 year old girl - murdered simply because she was Jewish. So the original diary was only published - after all the "offensive" words were edited out. The complete diary would not be published until the brink of the 21st century. What does that say about us as a society?

--QP

 

I'm pretty sure this was what Ddoright was angling at when he responded to this. Yes, the elderly were targeted, and they were beaten to death. But it's the last part of what you say which is really crucial. MONEY was the main motive in those crimes, not because the perpetrators felt that old people were non-human, or undeserving of life. They were after money, and chose old people to attack because they are more vulnerable than most other people. They were probably targeted because they were old, but only because they're age meant they'd put up feeble resistance against the perpetrators.

The difference being addressed is that lots of gay and transpeople are beaten and murdered for NO other reason than their sexuality or gender identity is seen as somehow subhuman. The old people were murdered primarily for money, not specifically because of the fact that they're old. Is the outcome of the crime just as despicable? Yes. But as has been mentioned before, crimes against minorities are unique because they are designed not just to hurt the individual they've directly attacked, but to instill fear in a whole group of people who somehow don't ''fit in'' with what's seen as ''the norm''. Although those attacks on old people were abhorrant, what is being discussed here, is motive. The old people weren't killed because the murderers thought they were unfit for life because they're old. They were killed as a means to an end to get money.

Statistically, gay, and especially transpeople are much more likely to be verbally abused, harassed, violently assaulted, or murdered than any other group of people. Some here are going on about minorities wanting ''special treatment'', when all most of them actually want, is to be able to freely be themselves without fear of potentially violent consequences being unleashed upon them purely for being who they are. Lots of gay and transpeople still hide the truth about themselves and live a lie, purely through fear of what could potentially happen if they do disclose who they really are. I myself have lived in fear for many years purely because Im afraid of what certain people might do if they knew the truth about me. This is something that most ''normal'' people just cannot comprehend, because they do not have to endure it.

 

Very well said (as usual). Not really sure why anyone would perceive the hope for equal rights as "special rights"? Maybe the ghost of Archie Bunker - still haunts us like the ghost of Hamlet? Gosh, Shakespeare would be appalled. Totally.

--QP

 

Thanks.

I do find it somewhat disturbing that some people are equating asking for equal rights as asking for ''special rights''. Until the day I am treated by society as NO different from any other female, and that I cannot potentially be treated differently, harassed or physically attacked purely for being who I am, then I do not have equal rights to others considered ''normal''. People have to start getting real here. Gays, and in particular, trans & intersex people are NOT treated as equal members of society by most other people in it. Most are treated at best, as objects of ridicule and a source of ''amusement'' for others who are too ignorant to know any better. And at worst, as subhumans, who are not worthy of life, and that the world would be better off without.

I'm sure I speak for the majority of people in mine, and similar situations, that all I want, is true equality, that is all. When the day comes that all that are within certain minority groups of people, are free to live their day to day lives without fear of being discriminated against, being intimidated, or subject to violence purely for being who they are, that is the day that we have equality. People trying to masqeurade the hiding of prejudicial and bigoted motives behind certain violent crimes as treating minorities ''equally'', are certainly not fooling me.