The Gay Thread

[JWBear]

Hate crimes are usually not random. It's simply not the same as your run-of-the-mill mugging or robbery. They are motivated solely by hatred of a particular group (or groups). The victims are targeted specifically due to their (actual or perceived) membership in a particular class. The violence is more horrific in these types of crimes.

The purpose of hate crimes laws is not to say that members of the protected classes are some how “special”, and that random crimes against them are somehow worse. The laws are a statement by society that it will no longer tolerate violence that is directed specifically towards a certain group - violence that is motivated by hatred.

[innerSpaceman]

I will counter that violence motivated by hatred is no more vile than violence motivated by greed or revenge or desperation. And certainly a single. non-protected class person can be murdered by virtue of hatred.


But I do think it's within society's purview to say Attempt to Hurt One of Us, Go to Jail for 20 Years; Attempt to Hurt a Hundred of Us, Go to Jail for 50.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hate crimes can be random in that someone is randomly targeted for being black or having a swish in his walk. But, no it's not like someone is just punched in the face because she's carrying a purse.

I just posted this on my FB page but the attack is meant to be a message to an entire group of people. It's like a terrorist attack. (I know, I hate using that word "terrorist". It's been watered down in the media to represent just about anyone now.)

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I will counter that violence motivated by hatred is no more vile than violence motivated by greed or revenge or desperation. And certainly a single. non-protected class person can be murdered by virtue of hatred.


But I do think it's within society's purview to say Attempt to Hurt One of Us, Go to Jail for 20 Years; Attempt to Hurt a Hundred of Us, Go to Jail for 50.

Murder for financial gain makes you death eligible. The other ones don't unless you mix in a little torture or extra heinousness.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Hate crimes are usually not random. It's simply not the same as your run-of-the-mill mugging or robbery. They are motivated solely by hatred of a particular group (or groups). The victims are targeted specifically due to their (actual or perceived) membership in a particular class. The violence is more horrific in these types of crimes.

Really?

A woman who is white and straight and is raped and her throat slashed and her body beaten is LESS horrific than a gay man who is raped and has his throat slashed and body beaten?

A man who sets out to kill a woman is not random.

I'm sorry but that is absurd and wrong.

All violent crime requires hatred and anger-it should not matter what the thinking was or the "membership" of a group of people.

A murdered gay man did not suffer more agony and fear than the murdered woman-his family does not feel more pain and loss.

Hate crime laws create different classes of victims- it's wrong.

Prosecute the crime equally- no matter the motivation. Someone who gets punished for a "hate crime" should not do more jail time than someone who did not- they should do the same.

We can not and should not attempt to prosecute THOUGHT.

Equality-
Marriage
Serving in the Armed Services

Equal-and the process and punishment for violent crimes against anyone should be equal too.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Prosecute the crime equally- no matter the motivation. Someone who gets punished for a "hate crime" should

Are you against distinctions between murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc.?

eta: asked because those are crimes that carry vastly different punishments, based only on the distinction of motive.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I should add that how much the victim or family suffered is somewhat irrelevant to the debate. Criminal justice isn't, and shouldn't be about retribution, or an attempt to assuage the hurt the victim/victim's family feels. This has been shown time and again with regards, specifically, to the death penalty. Very very very few people have, in the long run, said that once a killer is put to death, that they somehow feel vindicated or relieved.

Criminal justice should is about A) punishing the criminal and B) maintaining societal order. An argument can be made (I should mention here that I'm of two minds regarding hate crime legislation) that people who commit violent crimes based on bigoted motives are people who are more likely to commit another violent crime in the future. The thought being that, since their animosity is directed at an entire GROUP of people, rather than some individual grudge, they pose a larger threat and should therefore be kept out of society longer. It's not about making the victim feel better, it's about discouraging and preventing future incidents as much as possible.

I don't know that there's any evidence that such legislation is effective in that aim, but there is some logic there that I can follow, so I'm not ready to entirely dismiss it as a useful tool for long term dampening of the ugly bit of American culture that is literal gay bashing.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Really? ...

A murdered gay man did not suffer more agony and fear than the murdered woman-his family does not feel more pain and loss.

So what about the fear I felt when Matthew Shepard was murdered vs. the totally didn't feel a thing when Matilda Himmelfarb was murdered.

Never heard of Matilda Himmelfarb? Exactly.

Matilda was murdered for her money. Matthew was murdered because he was gay. I suppose "hate crimes" is a poor term because, you are right, almost all crimes have an element of hatred. And Gemini Cricket is right that terrorism has been too watered down, but that's why the punishments are enhanced. Because what we are calling "hate crimes" are literally terrorism.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Are you against distinctions between murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc.?

eta: asked because those are crimes that carry vastly different punishments, based only on the distinction of motive.

It would be interesting to look at what defines those more distinctly-

Like- a drunk driver may be charged with man slaughter instead of murder. They did not set out to kill.

A crime of passion where someone is killed vs. a plotted hit.

But of ALL of those distinctions-it doesn't matter to me if the victim is gay, straight, black, white.....the victims are equal.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So what about the fear I felt when Matthew Shepard was murdered vs. the totally didn't feel a thing when Matilda Himmelfarb was murdered.

Never heard of Matilda Himmelfarb? Exactly.

Matilda was murdered for her money. Matthew was murdered because he was gay. I suppose "hate crimes" is a poor term because, you are right, almost all crimes have an element of hatred. And Gemini Cricket is right that terrorism has been too watered down, but that's why the punishments are enhanced. Because what we are calling "hate crimes" are literally terrorism.

We can all feel fear of some sort of crime-

Maybe women are more impacted by fear of rape and murder.
Mothers may fear someone killing their children.

We may feel impact and fear based on our similarities to a victim-but punishment should not be meted out based on the fear impact on others- it should be based on the crime.