unmanaged wrote:

Americans overwhelmingly approve of legislation to prevent hate violence. In fact, three in four (or 68%) support expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and giving local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute these tragic acts of bigotry.

I am confident that you will champion the will of voters in your community and the majority of Americans, and bring our federal hate crime laws into the 21st Century, by ensuring that all of our citizens are protected against senseless hate violence.

While a random act of violence against any individual is always a tragic event, we know that violent crimes based on prejudice are meant to terrorize an entire community.

As Americans, we must defend our neighbors from becoming victims of bias-motivated violence.

So get out there and send a message.
I am not gay or part of any alternative lifestyle but there is no place for violence in our country even if you think what someone else is doing is wrong. There are other ways to express your views and violence is not the way.

More info here... http://www.hrc.org/

I don't see how violence toward alternative lifestyles is any worse than violence toward anyone else. I think this sort of law skews the justice system. I think it encourages unfair discrimination. Laws which force special treatment never end up creating equality.

Violence doesn't usually happen because people like each other. Most violence is hateful.

terratogen wrote:

unmanaged wrote:

Americans overwhelmingly approve of legislation to prevent hate violence. In fact, three in four (or 68%) support expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and giving local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to investigate and prosecute these tragic acts of bigotry.

I am confident that you will champion the will of voters in your community and the majority of Americans, and bring our federal hate crime laws into the 21st Century, by ensuring that all of our citizens are protected against senseless hate violence.

While a random act of violence against any individual is always a tragic event, we know that violent crimes based on prejudice are meant to terrorize an entire community.

As Americans, we must defend our neighbors from becoming victims of bias-motivated violence.

So get out there and send a message.
I am not gay or part of any alternative lifestyle but there is no place for violence in our country even if you think what someone else is doing is wrong. There are other ways to express your views and violence is not the way.

More info here... http://www.hrc.org/

I don't see how violence toward alternative lifestyles is any worse than violence toward anyone else. I think this sort of law skews the justice system. I think it encourages unfair discrimination. Laws which force special treatment never end up creating equality.

Violence doesn't usually happen because people like each other. Most violence is hateful.

That's the sole argument that comes up in these cases and I am going to say it is not correct. There is a fundamental difference between violence directed at someone because of who they are (an ass) versus what they are (black, gay, jewish etc.)

One of them is a function of personal interaction and if someone is a ass, then what happens, while probably not appropriate, is a function of who they are and how they act. The second is a mob response and should have a stronger response. Had Mattew Sheppard been killed because he was an asshole, then it falls into the same category as any other random fight in a bar. He wasn't. He was killed because he was gay and the rednecks with small dicks were so scared he might be checking out their asses, they beat him, broke his skull, then tied him to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to die.

As a rule I'm opposed to the death penalty because it's too easy to kill the wrong person. With these bastards? Hand them over to Edward Longshanks.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

One of them is a function of personal interaction and if someone is a ass, then what happens, while probably not appropriate, is a function of who they are and how they act. The second is a mob response and should have a stronger response. Had Mattew Sheppard been killed because he was an asshole, then it falls into the same category as any other random fight in a bar. He wasn't. He was killed because he was gay and the rednecks with small dicks were so scared he might be checking out their asses, they beat him, broke his skull, then tied him to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to die.

Some people might consider people who sing karaoke to be asses. Do karaoke folks deserve to get beat more than a gay person? If you're stabbed in a mugging and they catch the culprit, should how much time the assailant gets depend on whether or not you are gay? Should bullies in small towns avoid beating gays because the government thinks it would be better if they beat up nerds or whatever unlucky bastard who happens to pass by next? What about wife beaters? Street gangs? It's more ok to kill and beat people who aren't privileged enough to be on a list.

Intolerance of many kinds leads to violence. I do not feel race, religion, sexuality or stupidity entitles someone for "extra special" justice. I think injustice will probably increase intolerance and hate of those the system pretends to protect. The main pitch FOR this type of law is "Do you think hate crimes need to stop?" And of course most people say SURE! This sales pitch is about the same fallacy the Christian "Pro-Life" label. If you asked people if they thought VIOLENCE should stop... chances are that they'd agree. I think the sentence should be balanced by the severity of the crime and the situation. Grisly deaths and violence happen frequently. Should someone do less time for not killing a gay person because they felt like killing your Mom?

terratogen wrote:
Should someone do less time for not killing a gay person because they felt like killing your Mom?

I think what you're trying to say is, and attaching a personal slant to the argument as well, that why a person kills another person is irrelevant. That is simply wrong. As has long been recognized there are cases of "justifiable homicide." There are cases that have other exacerbating factors. A rape murder has always been considered a heavier offense than either alone. Why is Hitler worse than Stalin or Mao? They all killed in similar numbers, but Hitler is worse. He is worse because of that why. Why matters.

In an ideal world you wouldn't see cases like Matthew Sheppard or James Byrd, the lynchings across the American South or the condemnation to death of rape victims in some muslim countries. This isn't that world.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

terratogen wrote:
Should someone do less time for not killing a gay person because they felt like killing your Mom?

I think what you're trying to say is, and attaching a personal slant to the argument as well, that why a person kills another person is irrelevant. That is simply wrong. As has long been recognized there are cases of "justifiable homicide." There are cases that have other exacerbating factors. A rape murder has always been considered a heavier offense than either alone. Why is Hitler worse than Stalin or Mao? They all killed in similar numbers, but Hitler is worse. He is worse because of that why. Why matters.

In an ideal world you wouldn't see cases like Matthew Sheppard or James Byrd, the lynchings across the American South or the condemnation to death of rape victims in some muslim countries. This isn't that world.

Lets say 2 people are killed...
One of them is gay, and the other is a relative who is not gay.
Both are senselessly skinned alive in the same exact fashion.
The motive for both crimes is because the killer hated their respective victim.
Why should the Gay person's killer get a heavier sentence?

terratogen wrote:
Lets say 2 people are killed...
One of them is gay, and the other is a relative who is not gay.
Both are senselessly skinned alive in the same exact fashion.
The motive for both crimes is because the killer hated their respective victim.
Why should the Gay person's killer get a heavier sentence?

Given those circumstances, I agree, they should not. To give you a different set of circumstances, jackass A goes to rob a liquor store and in the process of the robbery, shoots and kills the owner. That's first degree murder + armed robbery + a host of other charges. Jackass B heads down to the gay section of whatever city they are in for the purpose of beating/killing someone, and does so. Still first degree murder.

The first case, absent a Sheppard rule, will get a stiffer sentence because of the surrunding circumstances, even though there was no original intent to commit murder. I am in favor of the Sheppard rule because intent matters.

Now if you want to complicate things and change situation A to guy goes out with the simple intent to kill someone, you're probably talking about a serial killer and at that point the whole thing is heading into something different.

The reality of most murders is, they are crimes of passion/rage. The killer and victim know each other and some incident has escalated. The vast majority of the rest are crimes committed in the course of other crimes like the robbery I describe above. Only a very few are cases like Sheppard or Byrd or Virginia Tech or Iowa 16 years ago or Son of Sam or Green River or Dahmer. Yet which get the most attention? Those very few. Why? Because intent (and body count) matter.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Given those circumstances, I agree, they should not. To give you a different set of circumstances, jackass A goes to rob a liquor store and in the process of the robbery, shoots and kills the owner. That's first degree murder + armed robbery + a host of other charges. Jackass B heads down to the gay section of whatever city they are in for the purpose of beating/killing someone, and does so. Still first degree murder.

The first case, absent a Sheppard rule, will get a stiffer sentence because of the surrunding circumstances, even though there was no original intent to commit murder. I am in favor of the Sheppard rule because intent matters.

Now if you want to complicate things and change situation A to guy goes out with the simple intent to kill someone, you're probably talking about a serial killer and at that point the whole thing is heading into something different.

The reality of most murders is, they are crimes of passion/rage. The killer and victim know each other and some incident has escalated. The vast majority of the rest are crimes committed in the course of other crimes like the robbery I describe above. Only a very few are cases like Sheppard or Byrd or Virginia Tech or Iowa 16 years ago or Son of Sam or Green River or Dahmer. Yet which get the most attention? Those very few. Why? Because intent (and body count) matter.

I agree. The intent is key but i think care should be taken when you change the sentence based on WHO is killed. I think it's understandable in cases of Police and such, but that mostly has to do with the cost in life and manpower that would be needed if everyone had no disincentive to resist the police. Let's say they change the hate crime bill to extend to everyone other than white straight men. Cutting it this way clearly shows the unfair discrimination. I can understand the need for tougher violence laws under some circumstances, but unless it's done with an even brush i think the cure is worse than the illness.

What if jackass B went to the gay section of town looking to kill, but couldn't find anyone walking the streets at that time of night. After some time he finds some homeless guy in a dumpster and figures he's good enough to kill. I don't believe killing homeless guy is significantly better than killing a gay person, or a minority. If it comes out during the trial that it was in fact a GAY homeless man, that should not affect sentencing. Under this law, it could.

More frequently, violence does not end in death. And even in these cases I think the circumstances of the act are more important than idiosyncrasies of the victim. Even if it was those idiosyncrasies which motivated the crime. The intent of harm for whatever reason is what needs to be addressed.

terratogen wrote:
I agree. The intent is key but i think care should be taken when you change the sentence based on WHO is killed. I think it's understandable in cases of Police and such, but that mostly has to do with the cost in life and manpower that would be needed if everyone had no disincentive to resist the police. Let's say they change the hate crime bill to extend to everyone other than white straight men. Cutting it this way clearly shows the unfair discrimination. I can understand the need for tougher violence laws under some circumstances, but unless it's done with an even brush i think the cure is worse than the illness.

What if jackass B went to the gay section of town looking to kill, but couldn't find anyone walking the streets at that time of night. After some time he finds some homeless guy in a dumpster and figures he's good enough to kill. I don't believe killing homeless guy is significantly better than killing a gay person, or a minority. If it comes out during the trial that it was in fact a GAY homeless man, that should not affect sentencing. Under this law, it could.

More frequently, violence does not end in death. And even in these cases I think the circumstances of the act are more important than idiosyncrasies of the victim. Even if it was those idiosyncrasies which motivated the crime. The intent of harm for whatever reason is what needs to be addressed.

I think that works for murder, let's see how it extrapolates.

Jackass A fills his car with molotov cocktails and drives around for a while burning down places at random. Jackass B does the same but specifically targets black churches or record stores or kosher delis. Should they be treated the same?

Mike the Usurper wrote:

terratogen wrote:
I agree. The intent is key but i think care should be taken when you change the sentence based on WHO is killed. I think it's understandable in cases of Police and such, but that mostly has to do with the cost in life and manpower that would be needed if everyone had no disincentive to resist the police. Let's say they change the hate crime bill to extend to everyone other than white straight men. Cutting it this way clearly shows the unfair discrimination. I can understand the need for tougher violence laws under some circumstances, but unless it's done with an even brush i think the cure is worse than the illness.

What if jackass B went to the gay section of town looking to kill, but couldn't find anyone walking the streets at that time of night. After some time he finds some homeless guy in a dumpster and figures he's good enough to kill. I don't believe killing homeless guy is significantly better than killing a gay person, or a minority. If it comes out during the trial that it was in fact a GAY homeless man, that should not affect sentencing. Under this law, it could.

More frequently, violence does not end in death. And even in these cases I think the circumstances of the act are more important than idiosyncrasies of the victim. Even if it was those idiosyncrasies which motivated the crime. The intent of harm for whatever reason is what needs to be addressed.

I think that works for murder, let's see how it extrapolates.

Jackass A fills his car with molotov cocktails and drives around for a while burning down places at random. Jackass B does the same but specifically targets black churches or record stores or kosher delis. Should they be treated the same?

It depends on the damages incurred. Assuming that the property damage was the same, they should be treated similarly. I'm not sure what value if any the cultural/historical significance of a religious building might add but i think that difference should probably be handled on the local level not the federal and be relative to other all other cultural property. Kosher deli's and record stores should be treated the same based on the value of what was destroyed. All of these types of acts would terrorize a community to some extent. Burning a building for non-culturaly significant reasons actually sends a broader message as it effects the entire community rather than a targeted portion. Regardless, in handling these things we really should try to treat cultural segments of areas as part of the whole community and not single them out as if they were a nation of their own. We should defend the property, persons, and culture of those not part of the mainstream every bit as vigorously as the mainstream but never any better or worse as much as possible.

Violence is far worse than hate to me. I don't like the hate crime laws - I think the regular laws - when properly applied - should be good enough. I can't figure out - in my small mind - when any violence is not accompanied by hate of some kind.

skullaria wrote:
Violence is far worse than hate to me. I don't like the hate crime laws - I think the regular laws - when properly applied - should be good enough. I can't figure out - in my small mind - when any violence is not accompanied by hate of some kind.

Thanks for the new view on this subject.