Is the public at large really better served by questioning whether or not Matthew Shephard's brutal murder was a result of a so-called hate crime. And while we're on the subject, if a person isn't commiting a love-crime, wouldn't it be considered a hate crime by default ? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
Most if not all crimes against another person are hateful, yes, but now there's just a division between those and crimes commited specifically because the perpetrator hates the victim's race/religion/sexual orientation, you know. I mean you know this, but it's just the difference between killing someone because they crossed you, and killing someone just because they're gay, as was Shephard's case.
should it matter? Is it worse that someone was murdered because they were gay or black than it is for someone to be murdered because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time? I dont think there should eb a difference. Treat them all the same.
Turns out the guy who killed Sheppard was Bisexual (or so it seems). So.. Does this now show the Hatred that Bisexuals have against Homosexuals? Come on folks.. many of you had NO PROBLEM using him as an example of what 'Heterosexual Hatred' was? Lets see some answers folks?
I do. There are more victims when a crime is motivated by hate. I would go so far as to call hate crimes ethnic terrorism because of the consequences they have on the target minorities community. When you kill someone because they are gay you are sending a message to all gay people that they are next and that they should live in fear. A person who kills someone for their nikes does not have that effect. The mental state of a defendent being used as an aggrivating factor is nothing new in law. If you kill someone out of malice, that carries a stiffer penalty than if you killed them by accident, even if the consequences are the same. If the murder is premeditated, that too carries a stiffer penalty. Also what the hell is this thread doing in the gay forum. I see Cocktoon has decided to post here. Do you got a secret you would like to share with us?
Thats funny that you call people 'Cocktoon' and wonder why they are 'speaking freely' in a forum. This is in the 'Gay Forum' (whatever that is supposed to mean) because many in this forum believed Matthew Sheppard was murdered by a 'Straight' person who did so because Sheppard was a "Gay" Now it turns out that Sheppard was murdered for his money. It also seems that Sheppards Killer was also interested in having homosexual sex (at least sometimes). It might be worth mentioning (because 'intentions' are being asked to be given more penalities) that the Murdered did not exactly 'Murder' Shepard. He beat Shepard unconcious. He knowingly left the Sheppard Alive on the fence. The courts still treat this as a Homicide, however a mitigating factor would be that he 'caused' the conditions that led to his death - rather than finalising his death. So.. Should Sheppards Killer get LESS time in jail because he believed he had only severely beaten Shepard. and Should he get less sentencing because he was Bisexual and beat Shepard for Money (instead of beating him because he knew he was gay) And... Should he get less sentencing because he is a Bisexual?
And when a rapist is on the loose, are all the women in the neighborhood not victims? They have to live in fear until the rapist is captured. When a burglar breaks into a neighboring house, am i not a victim? Do i not have to live in constant fear about someone breaking into my house, intruding on my family? You can apply your logic to a host of crimes. should burglarly be a hate crime? A hate crime is premeditated and should be treated as such. On a side note, i see a very grave danger of hate crimes being applied to crimes that were never meant to be treated like hate crimes. Hate crime legislation was supposed to stop KKK like violence. Its not a hate crime just because someones screams "you faggot." If you get in a fight with someone over a girl, and you start yelling racial slurs, that doesnt mean you've committed a hate crime. It just means you're a piece of crap.
Some of the most vehement of those who hate gays do so because they have problems with their own sexuality. They lash out at others for what they feel that they can't control & hate in themselves. Is there any reference to the killer's actual feelings as he committed the murder? I have to admit that I haven't read any recent details on this subject. On top of that it if they really were killing him for his money why didn't they say so when they were arrested or in court? It is easy to say anything years after the fact but that doesn't necessarily make what is said true.
Sorry, have peopole been suggesting that, if someone kills someone because they hate homos, they should get a lighter sentence? because that is blatant bollocks. People who kill for what I'd call "superficial reasons" can be separated from those who commit crimes of passion or self-defence (battered wives, etc.). But I dunno, was anyone seriously suggesting that someone who is tried for a "hate crime" should get a lighter sentence? I don't see what the fact that he didn't intend to kill him has to do with it. It wasn't premeditated but the guy's still dead, so he should be tried accordingly. But yeah, I really don't get the thinking here: why would he be tried less severely for being a bisexual?
some of teh greatest homophobics are in fact themselves gay or bi or whatever and haven't dealt with it or are trying to prove something. that doesn't make it right or acceptable.
So if it turns out Sheppards killer was bisexual and experiencing tremendous passion as a result of society's treatment of his sexuality.. ... and he beat Shepard in a rage... .. Doesnt that count as a crime of passion? Should the Murderer receive mercy because, after all, he was unfairly under stress by intolerance in our society? Personally... I would forever ban this Orwellian 'Hate Crime' concept for all time if I could. You kill Shepard? I dont GIVE A FUCK why you think you were doing it - YOUR A MURDERER so your 'Reasons' mean fuck all to me. You kill him - you get to take a dirt-nap, or enjoy a 6X10 cell for life.
I think if you look too deeply into stress from intolerance you end up caring way too much for the killer's motives, to be honest. Unless there is a really obvious sign of another motive, you've got to keep in mind at all times that, whyever he did it, he still did it, and someone is still dead as a result. I dont' think anyone would charge a rapist more lightly on the grounds that he was stressed out, so no, I don't really understand the reference. The way I see it, there are a hell of a lot of us here who undergo the same ardour and stress as a result of living in a hetero-dominated society. But I don't think any of us would expect sympathy if we killed someone just because we fancied them.
We're talking about a case that was big news all over the United States. People were talking about violence against gay people more than ever before, and it got some people to think about the issue. Gay groups held all sorts of events, and consciousness was raised. I probably don't have to tell too many people in this forum that we live in a world that is not always kind and friendly to gay people. My concern is that seeing this murder as something other than a hate crime might lead some people out there to think that the danger that gay people face is not as great as it really is. It's probably true that every day in the United States, someone experiences or is at least threatened by violence because someone else wants his/her money. If you live in a less desirable neighborhood, or are perceived to be vulnerable, or both, the risk is greater. Gay people are often considered more vulnerable. Whatever else you can say about Matthew Shepard and his attacker(s), Matthew certainly appeared vulnerable. If a man attacks another man for his money, he may try to defend himself by saying that the man he attacked made a pass at him and that enraged him so much that he couldn't think rationally. I certainly don't approve of this line of thinking, but many juries have heard this garbage and the juries' homophobia has allowed such men to walk free. If you're anything like me, this makes you angry for many reasons.
I know it's been said before, but I don't see how you can see any murder - except perhaps euthanasia - as anything other than a hate crime. So the term becomes redundant, as it doesn't really discern much difference between the crimes. And individual crimes should not be regarded as political tools, for either side of the debate. The fact is, achieving gay rights is going to be a slow process, and using incidents like this as pawns does nothing but exacerbate people's prejudices on both sides.
I sure wasn't. I hate hate & I loath hate crimes. I am glad that there are hate crime additiional penalties & think it would be good if there were even more penalties than there already are.
Well, you'll be happy to know that a sizeable chunk of the legal profession disagrees with you on this. Hate-crime legislation drags out cases in court for little or no reason, and seriously, in a hell of a lot of murder cases, the murderer's motives are pretty moot. I seriously don't see how hate-crime legislature is beneficial to anyone, all it does it perpetuates the belief that minorities are somehow different from the majority in the eyes of the law. Someone who commits a crime should be tried on grounds of the crime, not on the status of the victim.
