hate crimes
songbird
aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
victims?
i'm gagging. there's no way these laws are just, workable, or
even useful to the ends they wish to persue. i sure hope the
courts will throw them out as unconstitutional.
i can see enough scenarios that make them problematic. lessee,
suppose joe b. collar decides to have a few brewskis with the
neighbor. he happens also to be racist (i can hear the bricks
stacking on the scales already :) and he mentions to his buddy how
he hates (whatever group seems to be threatened at the moment) lets
call them "icks", so then he gets a little tanked, goes out and
runs into and "ick", but here's the catch, he doesn't know it, and
proceeds to commit some crime against the person.
they can't prove hatred or various degrees of dislike. nor should
they be attempting to. they should be working on proving actions
and damages from those actions.
and what would that make his buddy at the bar? an accessory
to a hate crime for listening? oh, this is a morass to avoid.
i can see why the lawyers would love to see this stuff become law.
can you see the witchhunt starting? i can and it will get worse.
uhg.
songbird
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
songbird
yeah, i know i'm following up my own post. *snicker*
guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
heard today that many states have already passed these laws
with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
*sigh*
guess i should be heading for the hills...
songbird *chirp*
Matthew Daly
> yeah, i know i'm following up my own post. *snicker*
>
> guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
>years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
>heard today that many states have already passed these laws
>with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
>on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
Our local NPR station had a story this morning on the legislative leader
who is keeping it from passing. Despite being a tough-on-crime kinda
guy, he doesn't see how someone who hates is going to be deterred from
manifesting his bigotry because of an extra jail sentence, especially
for a crime like the Wyoming case that is exactly why the death penalty
is back in vogue. (He also noted that NY judges have the latitude to
add additional jail time onto the maximum sentence if the judge feels
that extenuating circumstances exist, so the lack of formal hate crime
laws isn't a barrier.) And I don't know how you prove that a crime was
motivated by bigotry without really chilling rights like freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly.
Over the course of my life, I've noticed a growing sense that we have to
understand _why_ someone was motivated to commit a crime before deciding
on a sentence, which could either toughen the sentence (like hate
crimes) or lessen or eliminate it (like women killing their abusive
husbands in cold blood). Dave Barry remarked with disdain that John
Hinkley's trial wasn't about whether he was guilty of shooting President
Reagan but whether he was sane enough to be punished for it. As he
noted, "Apparently, it's against the law to be sane in Washington."
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly mwd...@pobox.com http://www.frontiernet.net/~mwdaly/
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right - Ashleigh Brilliant
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
--- Support the anti-Spam amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org ---
Fitzjon
the group:
----------
Songbird correctly chirped:
> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
>it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
>that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
>victims?
>
> i'm gagging. there's no way these laws are just, workable, or
>even useful to the ends they wish to persue. i sure hope the
>courts will throw them out as unconstitutional.
>
> i can see enough scenarios that make them problematic. lessee,
>suppose joe b. collar decides to have a few brewskis with the
>neighbor. he happens also to be racist (i can hear the bricks
>stacking on the scales already :) and he mentions to his buddy how
>he hates (whatever group seems to be threatened at the moment) lets
>call them "icks", so then he gets a little tanked, goes out and
>runs into and "ick", but here's the catch, he doesn't know it, and
>proceeds to commit some crime against the person.
Leaving aside for the moment the now-unpopular idea that hate and racism
deserve the same constitutional protections as other forms of speech in
this
country, what bothers me is that a crime apparently motivated by hate or
racism is somehow worse than a similar crime without that motivation, and
therefore worth more prison time.
Did Joe B. Collar go upside the Ick's head with a brickbat because he was
an
Ick, and Icks are lazy, filthy, cheating whoresons (10 years) or because
the Ick cut him off in traffic and Joe didn't *know* he was an Ick (5
years,
and shouldn't Icks have to wear some sort of colored triangle or
something?)
Last week, a young man from these parts (I live in South Carolina) was sent
to prison for wounding three people in a drive-by shooting. All the state
authorities could charge him with was assault and battery with intent to
kill and use of a firearm in commission of a felony.....sentences for which
could have sent him away for a few years in a state prison.
But.....the victims were young black folk, shot with an assault rifle
outside a nightclub *because* they were young black folk, shot by an
ignorant young Klansman fueled by the rhetoric at a Confederate flag rally
earlier in the day....for all those reasons, the young man was charged
under
federal hate crimes statutes and sentenced to 25.5 years in a federal pen.
Without parole.
The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
That earned him no mercy. Because his crime was motivated by racism, his
sentence was about double what it could have been had he shot these people
for *any* other reason....and the people, in effect, punished him both for
the shootings and for his noisome ideas. A neat end run around the
Constitution.
>
>
> and what would that make his buddy at the bar? an accessory
>to a hate crime for listening?
Interesting idea....carry it one step further - charge him with being an
accessory before the fact of a hate crime *and* with failing to report hate
speech to the authorities.
Jeff
----
"Praise Allah, but first tie your camel to a post." (Sufi proverb)
Empress of Blandings
>I'll never forget the time that s...@preferred.com (songbird) said:
>> guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
>>years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
>>heard today that many states have already passed these laws
>>with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
>>on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
>If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
>course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
>state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
>funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
Grump?
Hate crimes stand as a warning to other members of the same hated
group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
seriously that kind of assault.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ Momentum! A paying market for metrical poetry.
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.piglet.org/momentum
Eugenia
>
> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
>it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
>that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
>victims?
Yes.
It takes the emphasis away from what the criminal did and
shifts it to what racial, religious, etc. group the victim
happened to belong to.
It's the flip side of the "It's only sex" argument.
Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller
>Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
>that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>seriously that kind of assault.
Perhaps we should take all assaults seriously, instead.
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
--
Texas A&M University '89, '91
I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm anti-self-important twit.
Ted Gavin
>Permit me to delurk, after a year or so in the bushes, with my greetings to
>the group:
Welcome to de-lurking! Watch for the thorns on your way out of the
hedges, tho'...
>----------
>Songbird correctly chirped:
>
>> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
>>it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
>>that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
>>victims?
>>
>> i'm gagging. there's no way these laws are just, workable, or
>>even useful to the ends they wish to persue. i sure hope the
>>courts will throw them out as unconstitutional.
>>
>> i can see enough scenarios that make them problematic. lessee,
>>suppose joe b. collar decides to have a few brewskis with the
>>neighbor. he happens also to be racist (i can hear the bricks
>>stacking on the scales already :) and he mentions to his buddy how
>>he hates (whatever group seems to be threatened at the moment) lets
>>call them "icks", so then he gets a little tanked, goes out and
>>runs into and "ick", but here's the catch, he doesn't know it, and
>>proceeds to commit some crime against the person.
>
>Leaving aside for the moment the now-unpopular idea that hate and racism
>deserve the same constitutional protections as other forms of speech in
>this
>country, what bothers me is that a crime apparently motivated by hate or
>racism is somehow worse than a similar crime without that motivation, and
>therefore worth more prison time.
>
One of the issues that had been discussed in some legislative forums was
that if an individual is able to be compelled to commit a crime purely
out of hate, then they are more seriously in need of many different
levels of adjustment than the Ordinary Decent Criminal. They won't get
it in the Correctional System (not likely, anyway), but the point was
that they were isolated from society for a longer period of time.
>Did Joe B. Collar go upside the Ick's head with a brickbat because he was
>an Ick, and Icks are lazy, filthy, cheating whoresons (10 years) or because
>the Ick cut him off in traffic and Joe didn't *know* he was an Ick (5
>years, and shouldn't Icks have to wear some sort of colored triangle or
>something?)
>
Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
"B".
>Last week, a young man from these parts (I live in South Carolina) was sent
>to prison for wounding three people in a drive-by shooting. All the state
>authorities could charge him with was assault and battery with intent to
>kill and use of a firearm in commission of a felony.....sentences for which
>could have sent him away for a few years in a state prison.
>
>But.....the victims were young black folk, shot with an assault rifle
>outside a nightclub *because* they were young black folk, shot by an
>ignorant young Klansman fueled by the rhetoric at a Confederate flag rally
>earlier in the day....for all those reasons, the young man was charged
>under
>federal hate crimes statutes and sentenced to 25.5 years in a federal pen.
>Without parole.
>
>The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
>renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
>That earned him no mercy. Because his crime was motivated by racism, his
>sentence was about double what it could have been had he shot these people
>for *any* other reason....and the people, in effect, punished him both for
>the shootings and for his noisome ideas. A neat end run around the
>Constitution.
>>
I disagree completely. The Constitution does not protect freedom of
ideas. The Constitution does NOT give you the right to exercise (or,
exorcise) those ides at the expense of other people's rights to life,
liberty, and freedom. That is what a civil rights violation is, not
doing something to someone who is a minority and who then complains
about it. He admitted that he was addle brained enough to be led around
by hype and propaganda, and to be compelled to try to murder several
people solely because his fears compelled him to do so.
IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
in a gang-rape in prison. Anybody stupid enough to think that a random
member of another social, cultural, or racial group is capable of doing
them harm merely through their solitary existence, and decides to
rectify that by trying to remove said random members of said group is
too fucking stupid to exist in society without someone else making
decisions for them, which is Clearly What Was Happening that day.
Unfortunately, it was the Confederate Blathering Shepherds who were
doing the leading, and he was their bleating sheep du jour.
If he *wanted* Mercy, he could have *acted* with mercy.
>> and what would that make his buddy at the bar? an accessory
>>to a hate crime for listening?
>
>Interesting idea....carry it one step further - charge him with being an
>accessory before the fact of a hate crime *and* with failing to report hate
>speech to the authorities.
>
That step isn't in the path....the *speech* is protected. You can say
anything you want, and damn near wherever you want. Your view, while
well presented (to an extent) is merely an extension of the "Shout Fire
in a Crowded Theater" debate. You can tell anyone at the corner bar
that you "want" to do it. No crime there. You can go to the theater
"wanting" to do it. No crime there, either. The minute you're stupid
enough to open your mouth, tho', you've committed a crime. But, if you
tell someone at the bar that you're "going" to do it...accessory before
the fact (but really tough to make that stick..uninvolved co-conspirator
might be more likely.) If you "tell" people to do it...then you're an
idiot. Give you an example of that. A month ago (?), in NYC, a man
spoke in Harlem, urging the onlookers to rise up against the Police and
Society..."take their guns and use them against them" is one phrase I
seem to remember. Now, how is that different than if the flag-waving
Confederates said the same thing? Go rid the South and your Nation of
these minorities, and thus protect yourself and your family? It's
EXACTLY the same thing. It's motivation by fear, and people react to it
due to fear.
And that's the way it is...and probably will continue to be.
For example...I don't give much of a damn if someone is racist, or
anti-semitic, whatever. Just as long as they have the cojones to admit
it. I respect the fact that they have their own ideas, no matter how
unfounded. But, the minute someone decides to vandalize a synagogue
(private property), or bomb a church (private property, endangering
lives, killing people), or torturing and killing someone (...duh!), it
is no longer a protected form of expression. Period. Because it has
inexorably involved innocent third-parties.
Ted Gavin http://home.att.net/~tedgavin
-----------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning
entity that is deeply and personally concerned about
my sex life.
songbird
pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings) wrote:
> mwd...@pobox.com, in article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>, dixit:
> >If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
> >course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
> >state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
> >funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
> Grump?
> Hate crimes stand as a warning to other members of the same hated
> group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
> the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
how is this different than any other violent crime? in the case
of robbery isn't it saying to everyone "stay home there are bad people
out here ready to take your money (or your life). *growl*" and it'd
be fairly easy to come up with plenty of other examples.
> Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
> some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
> was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
> deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
> that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
> seriously that kind of assault.
i agree any crime should be treated seriously and that the
punishment should be fitting. i don't think extra time for
assaulting "special" groups is fair justice. indeed it creates
the kind of class-layered society i'd rather not see get more
established. i also don't see how it can reasonably be enforced
without some mental state inspector standing by the instant the
crime was going down. too many people are going to get lynched
by this one and we've had enough of that in this country for one
century. let's not start the next by foaming at the mouth to
start yet another round of witch hunting.
*sigh*
i don't think we are in any danger of such things being ignored
or taken lightly. i'm more afraid of them going in the other
direction especially with the death penalty being so prevalent.
and this says nothing about what punishment those men deserve.
if they are guilty (and i'd say it looks like they are), i'd call
it just to see them in jail for life with no parole.
> ____
> Piglet \bi/ Momentum! A paying market for metrical poetry.
> pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.piglet.org/momentum
songbird
bikerbabe in black leather
Fitzjon <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Leaving aside for the moment the now-unpopular idea that hate and racism
>deserve the same constitutional protections as other forms of speech in
>this
Broadly interpreting speech, in this case.
>country, what bothers me is that a crime apparently motivated by hate or
>racism is somehow worse than a similar crime without that motivation, and
>therefore worth more prison time.
Why does that bother you?
Do you want to live in a society which condones violence perpetrated
by hatred?
I mean, for god's sake folks, we currently lock up drug users for far
longer than we do people who commit a violent crime, and if someone
whose violence is motivated by hatred towards a target group (and
notice, Songbird, I make no distinctions about a "special" group, it
could be any) gets a longer jail sentence as a result, then good. I'd
much rather we weren't locking up people for victimless crimes, then
letting people who have proven their propensity for violence back out
among peaceable folks.
Quite frankly, I don't really see a whole lot of injustice in it.
I see a whole lot more injustice in imprisoning people for victimless
crimes than for giving violent offenders a few more years.
>
>But.....the victims were young black folk, shot with an assault rifle
>outside a nightclub *because* they were young black folk, shot by an
>ignorant young Klansman fueled by the rhetoric at a Confederate flag rally
>earlier in the day....for all those reasons, the young man was charged
>under
>federal hate crimes statutes and sentenced to 25.5 years in a federal pen.
>Without parole.
Well boo hoo. If you're going to get all charged up by rhetoric to
the point you go out and hurt or kill innocent people, then
you deserve whatever happens to you.
I do see a difference between someone who commits a robbery and ends
up hurting someone as a result, or someone who loses their temper in
traffic and kills some poor slob who cut them off, and someone who
sets out to commit violence aimed at someone because of what that
person represents.
You mentioned free speech earlier. Well, perpetrating violence
motivated by hatred is on very effective way of curtailing someone
elses free speech (for your values of speech).
>The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
>renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
You know, I'd do or say just about anything in order to stay out of
jail. I suspect most people would as well.
It's funny to hear the type of people who are usually the lock em up
and throw away the key kinds of people start to get all upset at
increased sentencing with regards to hate crimes.
Violence should *never* be used to oppress others. Sadly, it all too
often is.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Fitzjon
tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On 14 Oct 1998 11:14:46 -0400, "Fitzjon" <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Songbird correctly chirped:
[snipping here songbird's alarm at hate crimes legislation....]
> >>
> >> i can see enough scenarios that make them problematic. lessee,
> >>suppose joe b. collar decides to have a few brewskis with the
> >>neighbor. he happens also to be racist (i can hear the bricks
> >>stacking on the scales already :) and he mentions to his buddy how
> >>he hates (whatever group seems to be threatened at the moment) lets
> >>call them "icks", so then he gets a little tanked, goes out and
> >>runs into and "ick", but here's the catch, he doesn't know it, and
> >>proceeds to commit some crime against the person.
> >
>
> >Did Joe B. Collar go upside the Ick's head with a brickbat because he was
> >an Ick, and Icks are lazy, filthy, cheating whoresons (10 years) or because
> >the Ick cut him off in traffic and Joe didn't *know* he was an Ick (5
> >years, and shouldn't Icks have to wear some sort of colored triangle or
> >something?)
> >
> Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
> justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
> rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
> you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
> systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
> "B".
Of course it's a far cry. That's not the comparison I made. I'm arguing
that bopping someone in the head because he cut you off in traffic is
fundmentally no different from bopping him in the head because he is "A"
or "B". Or, if you like, hunting him down and killing him because he is
"A" or "B" is fundamentally no different from following him home and
gunning him down in his driveway because he cut you off in traffic.
Of course the Constitution protects freedom of ideas. You can't protect
freedom of speech without protecting the ideas expressed by speech. Klan
rallies, skinhead stomps and all sorts of neo-fascist soirees are full of
volatile ideas, and those ideas - *of themselves* - can't be viewed as a
violation of someone's right to life, liberty or freedom.
>
> IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
> in a gang-rape in prison.
A probability that few will lose sleep over....though a sentence to state
prison for the crimes he committed would have accomplished the same thing,
and just as efficiently.
>
> >> and what would that make his buddy at the bar? an accessory
> >>to a hate crime for listening?
> >
> >Interesting idea....carry it one step further - charge him with being an
> >accessory before the fact of a hate crime *and* with failing to report hate
> >speech to the authorities.
> >
> That step isn't in the path....[snipping here the "fire in a crowded
theater" debate, among other things].
Well, no, it isn't in the path. But an unchecked, unchallenged attempt to
suppress an idea makes it a conceivable step. It's not like it hasn't
happened before.
>
[more snippage]....I don't give much of a damn if someone is racist, or
> anti-semitic, whatever. Just as long as they have the cojones to admit
> it. I respect the fact that they have their own ideas, no matter how
> unfounded. But, the minute someone decides to vandalize a synagogue
> (private property), or bomb a church (private property, endangering
> lives, killing people), or torturing and killing someone (...duh!), it
> is no longer a protected form of expression. Period. Because it has
> inexorably involved innocent third-parties.
My argument is that turbocharging a prison sentence because a crime was
motivated by a wrongheaded interpretation of an idea is a backhanded
attack on the First Amendment. The right to hold and express failed,
discredited or even potentially dangerous ideas exists apart from how
people choose to act on those ideas. Of course firebombing a church isn't
a protected form of expression. It's arson and perhaps even attempted
murder. Period. And there *already* are laws on the books - and
punishments aplenty - to deal with every type of criminal behavior you
describe.
Thanks for the warm reception <g>
Jeff (who saves for another day the difference between white supremacists
and Confederates.)
--
----
"It gets late early out there." -- Yogi Berra
Fitzjon
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> In article <702ejc$hke$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Fitzjon <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Leaving aside for the moment the now-unpopular idea that hate and racism
> >deserve the same constitutional protections as other forms of speech in
> >this country, what bothers me is that a crime apparently motivated by hate or
> >racism is somehow worse than a similar crime without that motivation, and
> >therefore worth more prison time.
>
> Why does that bother you?
>
> Do you want to live in a society which condones violence perpetrated
> by hatred?
>
Of course not. I'm saying that violence perpetrated by hatred is no
different from violence perpetrated by greed, or by jealousy, or by
anything else. I'm bothered because such sentences punish the crime as
well as the ideology.
>
[snippage here.....]
>
> I do see a difference between someone who commits a robbery and ends
> up hurting someone as a result, or someone who loses their temper in
> traffic and kills some poor slob who cut them off, and someone who
> sets out to commit violence aimed at someone because of what that
> person represents.
I agree that there might be a difference between the types of people who
commit the crimes. I do not agree that there is a difference in the crimes
themselves.
>
> You mentioned free speech earlier. Well, perpetrating violence
> motivated by hatred is on very effective way of curtailing someone
> elses free speech (for your values of speech).
Beside the point, but I agree.
>
> >The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
> >renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
>
> You know, I'd do or say just about anything in order to stay out of
> jail. I suspect most people would as well.
> It's funny to hear the type of people who are usually the lock em up
> and throw away the key kinds of people start to get all upset at
> increased sentencing with regards to hate crimes.
It's not my position that the kid was entitled to any leniency under the
law as written because of his statements to the court. I offered that
merely as background.
--Jeff
theurgy
charged with a hate crime for yelling racial insults at a passenger in a
car next to his. No contact, only something like "I'll string you up on a
tree you nigger bitch!" (language inferred from article) According to the
article the woman claimed that the insult was unprovoked. The man faces a
potential sentence of 5 years in prison.
Presumably he would be not so charged if his skin were black.
Lovely, this country, simply lovely...
Felicitations,
M.
Ted Gavin
My pint is that the intent is different. A crime of rage (road rage,
for instance) is an isolated incident based on a specific event among
specific persons. A hate crime is more comparable to terrorism, using
violence as a socio-policital means to an end.
[snip example]
>> >The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
>> >renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
>> >That earned him no mercy. Because his crime was motivated by racism, his
>> >sentence was about double what it could have been had he shot these people
>> >for *any* other reason....and the people, in effect, punished him both for
>> >the shootings and for his noisome ideas. A neat end run around the
>> >Constitution.
>> >>
>>
>> I disagree completely. The Constitution does not protect freedom of
>> ideas. The Constitution does NOT give you the right to exercise (or,
>> exorcise) those ides at the expense of other people's rights to life,
>> liberty, and freedom. That is what a civil rights violation is, not
>> doing something to someone who is a minority and who then complains
>> about it. He admitted that he was addle brained enough to be led around
>> by hype and propaganda, and to be compelled to try to murder several
>> people solely because his fears compelled him to do so.
>
>Of course the Constitution protects freedom of ideas.
Not specifically. A person's private thoughts are unspecified, because
as a private thought, they are meaningless in a societal context. It is
when the idea moves beyond that, to action or words, that it becomes
tangible.
>You can't protect
>freedom of speech without protecting the ideas expressed by speech. Klan
>rallies, skinhead stomps and all sorts of neo-fascist soirees are full of
>volatile ideas, and those ideas - *of themselves* - can't be viewed as a
>violation of someone's right to life, liberty or freedom.
>>
That is absolutely correct. I'm not condemning the ideas themselves.
It is the act of putting those ideas into action that is illegal. Not
the act of "having" them. But be careful in the comparison. In your
example, you alluded to the fact that since the lad had apologized for
his crime to the victims, and had renounced the people who planted the
ideas in his head (allegedly) in the first place, he was prosecuted (and
persecuted) because of his ideas (against the Constitution). Perhaps I
read it wrong, but he was prosecuted and sentenced for the crime. What
his "ideas" were (an intangible quantity), regardless of what penance or
transformation may have occurred after the fact, are not relevant. What
his "motivation" for the crime was (a tangible quantity) is of
relevance.
RealLife(tm) example of my reasoning. A misogynist sits at home,
thinking of all the bad things in his life, and how they were all caused
by women, in his opinion, and reflects that his life would be better if
women would all die. Is that a crime? Nope. The misogynist yells at
women on the street that they should all die. Is that a crime?
Probably not more than disturbing the peace, as long as he does it from
a distance. If he takes a rifle, and starts killing women on the
street, and his misogyny becomes known, and it can be proven that his
act was part of his ultimate goal to rid his world of women, then that
is a systematic, planned (even if the action is only impulsive) act with
an agenda. That's a hate-crime. The idea was harmless. The putting
into action of that idea was deadly.
I guess what I'm saying is an idea by itself is harmless. When you
plant it in a stupid person, bad things will happen. Which leads into a
whole other discussion where I can talk about why I'm absolutely
terrified of Tipper Gore *ever* becoming First Lady of the Untied States
of America :-)
>> IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
>> in a gang-rape in prison.
>
>A probability that few will lose sleep over....though a sentence to state
>prison for the crimes he committed would have accomplished the same thing,
>and just as efficiently.
>>
I would agree with that. The whole Federal Crime v. State Crime puzzle
gets daunting at times, and is usually just a tool to force states into
a specific way of proceeding in a specific manner to set circumstances.
I'm not against a Federal Hate Crime definition, but it has to work both
ways. If the government is going to force the states, regardless of the
composition of their individual populations, to adhere to one set of
guidelines (hate crimes, for example) then it should extend across the
board (fully mandated legal rights for homosexual couples and
individuals, for example).
>> >> and what would that make his buddy at the bar? an accessory
>> >>to a hate crime for listening?
>> >
>> >Interesting idea....carry it one step further - charge him with being an
>> >accessory before the fact of a hate crime *and* with failing to report hate
>> >speech to the authorities.
>> >
>> That step isn't in the path....[snipping here the "fire in a crowded
>theater" debate, among other things].
>
>Well, no, it isn't in the path. But an unchecked, unchallenged attempt to
>suppress an idea makes it a conceivable step. It's not like it hasn't
>happened before.
>>
That is true. Which is one of the reasons why ideas are specifically
excluded from Constitutional law. If it ain't mentioned, it can't be
challenged.
>[more snippage]....I don't give much of a damn if someone is racist, or
>> anti-semitic, whatever. Just as long as they have the cojones to admit
>> it. I respect the fact that they have their own ideas, no matter how
>> unfounded. But, the minute someone decides to vandalize a synagogue
>> (private property), or bomb a church (private property, endangering
>> lives, killing people), or torturing and killing someone (...duh!), it
>> is no longer a protected form of expression. Period. Because it has
>> inexorably involved innocent third-parties.
>
>My argument is that turbocharging a prison sentence because a crime was
>motivated by a wrongheaded interpretation of an idea is a backhanded
>attack on the First Amendment.
How is a person listening to "Go kill whitey" (just an isolated
example), who then does it, and gets sentenced for a hate crime, an
attack on the First Amendment? It does not represent an encroachment
upon the criminal's public association, religion, or speech, nor any of
the other tenants of that article. It does, however, take into
consideration zir motivation. Just as there is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree
homicide, there is also a hate-homicide, which represents a different
level of predetermination of a criminal act.
>The right to hold and express failed,
>discredited or even potentially dangerous ideas exists apart from how
>people choose to act on those ideas. Of course firebombing a church isn't
>a protected form of expression. It's arson and perhaps even attempted
>murder. Period. And there *already* are laws on the books - and
>punishments aplenty - to deal with every type of criminal behavior you
>describe.
>
It seems that we agree on the substance, but not the angle. You're
concern, if I'm reading you correctly, is the danger of the systematic
suppression of Freedom of Speech down to the level of the Cleansing of
what are considered "politic ideas". Basically, Joe Collar goes to jail
cause he thought about how he would be better off if he capped a coupla
Icks. If that is the case, I agree with you. The freedom to think what
one chooses, regardless of why they do, or what other people might think
of it, is fundamental and unchallenged. But, as they say...once you
open your mouth (or in this case, act on it), all bets are off.
>Thanks for the warm reception <g>
>
Hey...I love this sheeeit! You presented yourself well, coherently, and
your points made sense. You didn't generalize..sheesh...the compliments
could go on and on...Besides, constitutional law is one of my hobbies
:-) You want to see some suppression of rights, grab yerself a copy of
_The Right to Privacy_ by Adelman & Kennedy. Great case-by-case review
of major precedent-setting cases where individual's right-to-privacy was
either enhanced (rarely) or decremented (often). And a very good read,
too.
>Jeff (who saves for another day the difference between white supremacists
>and Confederates.)
Ted, and *that* list is long and distinguished...
Jo Walton
tedg...@worldnet.att.net "Ted Gavin" writes:
> IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
> in a gang-rape in prison.
I think this is vigilanteism.
If he deserves to die for his crimes, which probably he does, then
he should be sentenced to death by the court.
In saying that, in considering the illegal acts of prisoners inside
the prison (and how you you know he won't be the one gang raping
someone inside for speeding tickets or smoking a joint?) a legitimate
part of the punishment system, you are spitting in the face of
justice.
What's prison for? A deterrent? Keeping people who are a danger to
society out of society? A chance to reform and learn better? Or
a punishment? If it is a punishment, then of what does that
punishment consist? The deprivation of liberty and free choice,
or in gang rape? If it is gang rape, then why are women convicted of
equal crimes not so punished? If it is gang rape then why is this
not mentioned in the sentencing?
I'm getting really sick of seeing people say this sort of thing.
OK, it happens. But when it happens it is an illegal abuse of the
system that should be punished, not something for people to regard
like that.
If he deserves to die, sentence him to death, if he deserves
torture, sentence him to that, if that's what society wants.
Don't sneak rape and assault in through the back door as an
acceptable punishment which will happen to _the weak_ while the
strong in prison enjoy perpetrating more crimes. Do you really
want to live in a country where that's something cheerfully
accepted?
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Annette M. Stroud
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What's prison for? A deterrent? Keeping people who are a danger to
>society out of society? A chance to reform and learn better? Or
>a punishment? If it is a punishment, then of what does that
>punishment consist? The deprivation of liberty and free choice,
>or in gang rape? If it is gang rape, then why are women convicted of
>equal crimes not so punished? If it is gang rape then why is this
>not mentioned in the sentencing?
I was watching one of the Planet of the Apes movies, was it _Beneath the
Planet of the Apes_, where there was a race of humans who had evolved
telepathic powers. They imprison Charlton Heston and buds. When asked
what they are going to do to the prisoners, the pale, underground people
reply, "We are a civilized people; we don't harm our prisoners; we get our
prisoners to do that for us." Or something like that. I thought, gee,
that's what we do. The Pontius Pilate school of prison management.
>OK, it happens. But when it happens it is an illegal abuse of the
>system that should be punished, not something for people to regard
>like that.
>If he deserves to die, sentence him to death, if he deserves
>torture, sentence him to that, if that's what society wants.
>Don't sneak rape and assault in through the back door as an
>acceptable punishment which will happen to _the weak_ while the
>strong in prison enjoy perpetrating more crimes. Do you really
>want to live in a country where that's something cheerfully
>accepted?
I do live in a country like that. It says something awful about the
stress and dissatisfaction that people feel in their own lives that people
get worked up about prisoners having anything ameliorating in their
environment (tv, weightlifting). It also says that people haven't visited
prisons... I haven't either, only a county jail that I lived a block
away from. Once to pick up an attempted suicide who had been in jail
*pretrial* for months on a charge of uttery (like forgery without the
finesse). He evidently lost hope because he was the trusty who mopped the
floors and the other inmates would throw their cigarette butts on the
freshly mopped floors and taunt him.
Annette (don't think anyone's aiming for civility anymore)
Mark D. Garfinkel
Empress of Blandings <pig...@panix.com> wrote:
>Hate crimes stand as a warning to other members of the same hated
>group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
>the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
>
>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
>that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>seriously that kind of assault.
the good ole Southern style lynching of a black man, which may be
accompanied by false accusation of miscegenation for good measure.
Same effects, though: the reinforcement of day-to-day prejudice &
discrimination, including psychological if not physical segregation.
But as to the basis for legislation condemning "hate crimes":
IMO what we're trying to do is intensify the penalty associated with
<assault, rape, murder, et alia> when the perpetrator's _motive_ is
based primarily or exclusively in bigotry. For the law to make such
distinctions is consistent with, frex, the already existing distinctions
among first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter.
Personally, I'd be concerned with how various state's laws deal with
standards of evidence concerning the perpetrator's state of mind &
attitudes.
Mark
--
Mark D. Garfinkel (e-mail: mg...@midway.uchicago.edu. Ask for PGP public key)
(c) 1998; all rights reserved. Permission granted for Usenet quotation.
Fed up with unsolicited commercial e-mail? Join CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org
Ted Gavin
>In article <362a512e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
> tedg...@worldnet.att.net "Ted Gavin" writes:
>
>> IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
>> in a gang-rape in prison.
>
>I think this is vigilanteism.
>
>If he deserves to die for his crimes, which probably he does, then
>he should be sentenced to death by the court.
>
Get to that later...
>In saying that, in considering the illegal acts of prisoners inside
>the prison (and how you you know he won't be the one gang raping
>someone inside for speeding tickets or smoking a joint?) a legitimate
>part of the punishment system, you are spitting in the face of
>justice.
>
I agree with that sentiment, and my statement, although just a'brimming
with vigilantism, is not a wish for that to happen. It was a response
to what I read as a plea for a lighter sentence for a man who tried to
kill people due to their race. My sensitivities with regard to hate
crimes are such that, IMHO, a person who has committed murder because of
hate has chosen, in the most clear and irrevocable manner, to *not* be a
member of American Society. Thus, I wash my hands of him, end of story.
That his eventual experience in a prison where *he* is a minority will
likely be that, or something similar, it is not what I was espousing.
Rather, my statement is that I just don't care what happens to him.
Does that mean that I want prisons to become open killing grounds where
only the strong survive? No. Has that already happened? Maybe. But,
would you read my statement differently if I had said "I wash my hands
of him completely."
If that is the case, then emotion and details are not my freend in that
case.
>What's prison for? A deterrent?
If that is the case, it clearly does not work.
>Keeping people who are a danger to
>society out of society?
I feel that this is the most realistic approach in America today. It's
basically a "sweeping under the carpet" of criminals, so someone *else*
can worry about them later, when and if they are released.
>A chance to reform and learn better?
No, the idea of the penitentiary system was abandoned years ago.
>Or a punishment? If it is a punishment, then of what does that
>punishment consist? The deprivation of liberty and free choice,
>or in gang rape?
Jo, gang rape was not the proscribed punishment. But, in reality, that
is a likely occurrence in a federal prison for a white male convicted of
trying to kill black males because of hate. Same for a child molester.
They are sufficiently low in the prison hierarchy that they will be
*everyone's* target.
>If it is gang rape, then why are women convicted of
>equal crimes not so punished? If it is gang rape then why is this
>not mentioned in the sentencing?
>
Okay, let's replace the term "gang rape" with "shanking".
>I'm getting really sick of seeing people say this sort of thing.
>
Well, let's keep in mind the context that I am not prescribing that as a
punishment, rather I'm washing my hands of his existence in it's
entirety. Does that make me uncivilized? I don't think so. Perhaps
this experience last Saturday evening colors my thoughts. A group of
disaffected Generation X'ers who happened to be african-american decided
that they wanted to drive the very car that I happened to be driving at
the time, because I made the mistake of being caucasian in their
neighborhood. Hate crime? No...opportunistic bottom-dwelling? Yup.
The one with the gun prolly has a broken foot and some scars now, since
the wheels were spinning pretty fast when they ran over his foot. They
were spinning sufficiently fast enough that when it contacted his foot,
the force spun him over onto the ground, hard. His friends were smart
enough to get out of the way of the car when I floored the accelerator.
But somehow, we've come from "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to "Having a
Gun makes you the smartest person you've ever met". I don't theenk so.
So, would I have run the fellow with the gun down, presumably killing
him? Yup. (Did I try to? No, I did exactly what I intended to do.)
Would I have felt horrible about it afterwards? Absolutely. Does that
make me a vigilante? No, I was responding to a specific threat in a
specific way, with a solitary act. I was *not* chasing someone down in
a subway car, shooting, then continuing after they had been rendered
harmless.
>OK, it happens. But when it happens it is an illegal abuse of the
>system that should be punished, not something for people to regard
>like that.
>
I agree with that most wholeheartedly. My statement was, again, not a
wish, rather a statement that reflects the reality of prison life in
America today.
>If he deserves to die, sentence him to death, if he deserves
>torture, sentence him to that, if that's what society wants.
>Don't sneak rape and assault in through the back door as an
>acceptable punishment which will happen to _the weak_ while the
>strong in prison enjoy perpetrating more crimes. Do you really
>want to live in a country where that's something cheerfully
>accepted?
Unfortunately, the US *is* a country where that is ignorantly accepted.
I don't say cheerfully, because I just don't think society in general
realizes that it happens. Do I want it to go on? No. Do I recognize
that it does go on? Yes. I bear witness, with utter frustration, that
certain segments of the population, citing their religion, will dictate
what is and what is not life to the rest of the population, but not a
one of them is likely to give a damn about the ordinary criminal in an
ordinary prison. The politics of this country are such that we have
elected Presidents and leaders who oppose abortion, but are pro
death-penalty. Personally, I see that as a contradiction, but that is
just my opinion.
Hate crimes are a particular sore spot with me, because they represent
the same levels of maniacal abandonment of civilization that has
occurred time and time again throughout history. In the last sixty
years, we have gone from Kristallnacht in Germany, to Bubba and Dave's
Crystal Night Football Party and Jew burnin' in the southern US. I'm a
little sick of people who are so weak as individuals that they need to
blame someone else for all of their problems. My opinion is that a
murder which is motivated by religion, race, or sexual preference of the
victim should be a capital crime. Why? Because, as I said above, that
person or person's have rejected the concept of society irrevocably.
Capital Punishment does not work as a deterrent. It was intended to
recognize that there are some people who commit some crimes so heinous,
that they have given up their right to live in society, ever. I
consider *that* to be barbarism, because of the laws in some states that
dictate that if you kill a cop, you get the death penalty. That is
clearly a deterrent, not an evaluation of the psyches of the criminals
who do so, before the fact, en masse.
I would feel better if that sort of thing did not happen in prisons.
But, it does.
Ted, and I don't like it, either.
Kris Hasson
wrote:
[very large snip] [oh, so *that's* why I'm snippy...well, maybe not]
>The politics of this country are such that we have
>elected Presidents and leaders who oppose abortion, but are pro
>death-penalty. Personally, I see that as a contradiction, but that is
>just my opinion.
I don't see a contradiction per se. It depends on why they hold these
opinions.
Frex, I can imagine justifying the death penalty because the person
has demonstrated behavior that justifies removing zir permanently from
society, while justifying opposition to the availability of abortion
because the fetus hasn't yet demonstrated any such behavior.
Kris (but those aren't my opinions)
--
has...@teleport.com
"She's snippy." -- An anonymous opinion of me. Oh, the embarrassment.
Kris Hasson
>True story out of todays Salt Lake Trombone: a local 21-year old man is
>charged with a hate crime for yelling racial insults at a passenger in a
>car next to his. No contact, only something like "I'll string you up on a
>tree you nigger bitch!" (language inferred from article) According to the
>article the woman claimed that the insult was unprovoked. The man faces a
>potential sentence of 5 years in prison.
>
>Presumably he would be not so charged if his skin were black.
I guess self-hatred doesn't count as a hate crime.
ObTryingToHard: This is an example of the kind of differentiation
that causes me to question hate crime legislation. Either a threat of
violence is, *by itself,* a crime, and therefore the reason or
particular insults used are irrelevant, or this is protected speech in
my opinion. Likewise, if somebody spray-painted swastikas and the
words "die Jew" on my congregation's new synagogue, it's just graffiti
(which is already illegal). I grant you I'd be more afraid than if
they painted tags or obscene pictures, but I don't think there should
be any different remedy under the law.
Kris
Fitzjon
>On 15 Oct 1998 00:48:17 -0400,
fit...@earthlink.net (Fitzjon) wrote:
>
>>In article
<362a512e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Oct 1998 11:14:46 -0400, "Fitzjon"
<fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
in a drive-by, sentenced
to 25.5 years under a federal hate crimes
statute...and a tip o' the
scissors to songbird, who provided the
hypothetical Joe B. Collar, by all
accounts a racist and anti-Ickite, who does
violence to an Ick without
knowing his victim was an Ick....]
As I mentioned in a response to another post in
this thread, the kid's
statments in court are offered as background. I
don't think for a minute
that him saying he's sorry makes it all better.
Because his ideas are
inseparable from his motive, though, that makes
his ideas of utmost
relevance. I say he was sentenced for the crime
*and* for the political
beliefs that provided the framework for him.
Consider an alternative set of
facts: Let's suppose for a moment that the
defendant is a young black man
who sprayed the same crowd with bullets, wounding
the same three people, and
he tells police he did it because, say, the people
who frequent that club
were not staying in their own neighborhood.
Exactly the same criminal act as
our young Klansman, but nowhere near 25.5 years
without parole in federal
prison for a hate-crime conviction.
What different level would that be? How is murder
motivated by political
belief worse than murder motivated by jealousy?
>>The right to hold and express failed,
>>discredited or even potentially dangerous ideas
exists apart from how
>>people choose to act on those ideas. Of course
firebombing a church isn't
>>a protected form of expression. It's arson and
perhaps even attempted
>>murder. Period. And there *already* are laws on
the books - and
>>punishments aplenty - to deal with every type of
criminal behavior you
>>describe.
>>
>It seems that we agree on the substance, but not
the angle. You're
>concern, if I'm reading you correctly, is the
danger of the systematic
>suppression of Freedom of Speech down to the
level of the Cleansing of
>what are considered "politic ideas". Basically,
Joe Collar goes to jail
>cause he thought about how he would be better off
if he capped a coupla
>Icks. If that is the case, I agree with you.
[snip]
Yes, with this modification: Joe Collar goes to
jail for a longer period of
time than he would for the same crime absent the
political motivation. And
remember songbird's scenario - Joe gets the hate
crime treatment because of
his professed loathing of all things Ick, though
he was allegedly unaware of
his victim's heritage. It becomes a First
Amendment problem because marrying
political ideas to criminal acts becomes easier to
do with practice and
precedent. The next step might be banning
neo-fascist rallies because of the
potential for concomitant criminal behavior.
The slope gets mighty slippery after that.
--Jeff <--preferring his First Amendment warts and
all.
James Nicoll
In Canada there is a defense called the 'Homosexual Panic'
defense, where the defendant claims that the victim made a pass
and the resulting murder was due to the frame of mind that caused.
It's ludicrous to my mind: anything with so little self control
that a pass makes them commit murder isn't a person and should be
contained humanely until a use for their organs comes up.
Interesting defense if women used it. "A 45 yr old bald man
made a pass at me and as any normal person would, I panicked and
beat him to death with my shoe."
If frame of mind and lack of self-control can be used
as a defense, why not by the prosecution?
--
"[...] it's been about 12 years now that I've been singing this dumb song. You
know, it's amazing that somebody could get away with singing a song this dumb
for that long. [...] what's more amazing than that is that somebody could make
a living singing a song this dumb for that many years. But, that's America."
Empress of Blandings
>>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>>deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
>>that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>>seriously that kind of assault.
> Perhaps we should take all assaults seriously, instead.
"Should" packs quite a meaning, bucko. How you proposing to implement
this ideal society of yours? Maybe a little hate crime legislation on
the side for starters?
I don't get the excitement over "thought crimes" that is often voiced
as an objection to hate crime legislation. We already consider motive
as a factor in determining the seriousness of an assault --- what else
are first degree / second degree murder / manslaughter, etc.?
--
Empress of Blandings
> ... I'm arguing
>that bopping someone in the head because he cut you off in traffic is
>fundmentally no different from bopping him in the head because he is "A"
>or "B". Or, if you like, hunting him down and killing him because he is
>"A" or "B" is fundamentally no different from following him home and
>gunning him down in his driveway because he cut you off in traffic.
Oh, but it is different. Bopping someone over the head because they
are "A" sends a clear warning to every other person who is also "A"
that they might be next. That they are on the acceptable hit list.
That at any moment, without any warning, someone might bop them over
the head. So they'd be a lot better off if they didn't look "A", or
didn't act "A" or didn't go out in public and provoke anyone.
>Jeff (who saves for another day the difference between white supremacists
>and Confederates.)
Amen, brother! Been to NuSouth, btw? On Huger St., IIRC. I hope
they're still around; the web site seems to have been taken over by a
media firm. Ack! Shoulda bought 'em out more when I was there.
gw...@my-dejanews.com
tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
[expanding on his earlier statement]
> >> IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
> >> in a gang-rape in prison.
There's a lot of content in the whole posting, and I need to
think for a while to decide my view of it, so I'll only refer
here to a couple of snippets that I found especially striking.
> kill people due to their race. My sensitivities with regard to hate
> crimes are such that, IMHO, a person who has committed murder because of
> hate has chosen, in the most clear and irrevocable manner, to *not* be a
> member of American Society. Thus, I wash my hands of him, end of story.
... and ...
> Well, let's keep in mind the context that I am not prescribing that as a
> punishment, rather I'm washing my hands of his existence in it's
> entirety. Does that make me uncivilized? I don't think so. Perhaps
Something about this made me pause. I've never thought very hard
about this before, so I'm trying to work it out as I go along,
but my reaction is roughly this: that you haven't washed your
hands of him entirely.
Society claims the right to lock this person up, because he
broke the rules. But to say that the rules apply to him is
in itself an implicit claim that he remains a member of
society. If he's genuinely not a member of society, I don't
see how society has any business trying to control him; if
society believes that it has rights over him (or, and I
haven't decided yet to my own satisfaction whether this is
entirely equivalent, that he has obligations to it), then I
think it should obey its own rules and fulfil the obligation
to protect him from crime.
This isn't properly clear in my head yet, so I doubt I've
been able to make it at all clear here. But I think there's
something here that matters; I'll try to work it out in more
detail later.
gwyddwr
Lynn Dobbs
songbird wrote in message <703leg$4ga$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <702qlv$l...@news1.panix.com>,
> pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings) wrote:
>> mwd...@pobox.com, in article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>, dixit:
>[snip of my comments on how many states had passed hate crimes laws]
>> >If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
>> >course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
>> >state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
>> >funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
>> Grump?
>
>> group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
>> the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
>
>of robbery isn't it saying to everyone "stay home there are bad people
>out here ready to take your money (or your life). *growl*" and it'd
>be fairly easy to come up with plenty of other examples.
The difference is one of motivation. A violent act committed against a
person primarily or solely based on the bias of the attacker is a different
class of violence than indiscrminate violent acts such as armed robbery.
I am not pleased with the name "hate crime," but I think many kinds of
violence fit into the catergory of bias motivated crime. Violence against
people of color for their color, women just because they are women,
non-heterosexual acting folks because they break some gender rule, etc. etc.
etc. These can be crimes committed by individuals against other individuals
or state sanctioned (Bosnia/Sebia comes to mind. How about those Kurds.)
These are all crimes in which the victim is seen as less than fully human
and deserve to be treated cruelly.
>> Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
>> some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>> was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>> deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
>> that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>> seriously that kind of assault.
>
> i agree any crime should be treated seriously and that the
>punishment should be fitting. i don't think extra time for
>assaulting "special" groups is fair justice.
I have trouble with adding time to a sentence. Hell, I have trouble with
retributive justice systems in general. But this isn't because a "
'special' group" member was assaulted; it is why the person was assaulted.
It isn't a hate crime to mug a gay person for his wallet. But it is a hate
crime to murder him because he is gay.
> indeed it creates
>the kind of class-layered society i'd rather not see get more
>established. i also don't see how it can reasonably be enforced
>without some mental state inspector standing by the instant the
>crime was going down. too many people are going to get lynched
>by this one and we've had enough of that in this country for one
>century. let's not start the next by foaming at the mouth to
>start yet another round of witch hunting.
Nice try, but no cigar. All hate crime law requires extraordinary proofs.
Many "obvious" hate crimes aren't prosecuted because the level of proof
required doesn't exist. The way the laws are currently written,I suspect
that no one will ever be convicted of a hate crime in a miscarriage of
justice..
> i don't think we are in any danger of such things being ignored
>or taken lightly. i'm more afraid of them going in the other
>direction especially with the death penalty being so prevalent.
Such crimes _are_ taken lightly. That is the point. Some are so gruesome
that they catch national media attention such as the African American who
was dragged behind the truck in Texas or the young gay man was just killed
in Wyoming or the burning of black churches. But most hate crimes aren't
taken seriously at all.
In fact, we still have judges, prosecuters and law enforcement officers who
believe that rape victims brought it on in some way, that gay folks deserve
to be beaten to death because of their "sins against nature," that men just
have to keep their wives in line with their fists and that people of color
are just too uppity and must be put in their place. Many cultural biases are
lead to "minor" crimes of violence all the time and they are accepted all
the time.
Ever hear the phrase "boys with be boys" when they beat the crap out of each
other? Sounds like a bias that _supports_ violence to me.
In Junior and high schools throughout the United States right now, "FAGGOT"
(or a derivation) is the insult of choice. Kids are routinely beaten up for
not be "boy" enough and this is culturally condoned if not out right
sanctioned.
I am steadfastly opposed to the death penalty for any crime or for any
reason at all. State sanctioned murder is still murder.
Peace and Pleasure,
Lynn
Partners for Peace, Jan Hansen & Lynn Dobbs, www.access1.net/partners
An affiliation created to teach tolerance and celebrate diversity
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Lynn Dobbs
Eugenia wrote in message <7030og$s4m$1...@ux2.isu.edu>...
>s...@preferred.com (songbird) wrote:
>>
>> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
>>it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
>>that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
>>victims?
>
>
> It takes the emphasis away from what the criminal did and
> shifts it to what racial, religious, etc. group the victim
> happened to belong to.
You both have misunderstood "hate crimes."
A mugger doesn't get a heavier sentence because he dislikes gays and his
victim is gay.
A mugger might get a heavier sentence because he dislikes gays and ONLY mugs
gays.
A mugger might get charged with a hate crime if his reason for mugging is
that his victim is gay.
It isn't the mugging that creates the hate crime. It is the reason he
selects specific victims.
It seems pretty obvious that the KKK selects their targets out of hateful
biases, right. You guys don't think the crime of arson with intent to
intimidate is a more significant crime than arson alone?
Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller
>jamm...@mindspring.com (Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller), in article
> <7032u5$efu$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, dixit:
>>In article <702qlv$l...@news1.panix.com>, thus spake pig...@panix.com (Empress
> of Blandings):
>>>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>>>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>>>deserved it, no big deal --- I think it's about time we served notice
>>>that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>>>seriously that kind of assault.
>
>
>"Should" packs quite a meaning, bucko. How you proposing to implement
>this ideal society of yours?
Mandatory firearms training, with right-to-carry. But that's a
group-eating thread for another day. :-)
> Maybe a little hate crime legislation on the side for starters?
I'm squeamish.
>I don't get the excitement over "thought crimes" that is often voiced
>as an objection to hate crime legislation. We already consider motive
>as a factor in determining the seriousness of an assault --- what else
>are first degree / second degree murder / manslaughter, etc.?
You raise a good counterpoint here, but IMO its not quite the same thing.
I'm no laywer (hi Jeem, Kenn) but my observations of random cases in the
news and on the teevee (they wouldn't lie, would they?) suggests that
motive is less used in in determining seriousness as in determining "would
they do it". Seriousness is generally determined more by what I might call
intent. Did the perp *intend* to kill/maim?
I see hate legislation better used in terms of defining a motive than
in suggesting intent.
Eugenia
["hate crimes"
>It isn't the mugging that creates the hate crime. It is the reason he
>selects specific victims.
Now, you go back and assume a gay person is mugging heterosexuals
because they're...well...heterosexuals and re-evaluate the issue
of "hate crimes".
I bet you at least paused and thought "No, no, it's to protect
minority groups that are usually attacked..."
>It seems pretty obvious that the KKK selects their targets out of hateful
>biases, right. You guys don't think the crime of arson with intent to
>intimidate is a more significant crime than arson alone?
And what about a black arsonist who sets fire to a member of the
KKK's house? Is that less significant because the victim was a
member of the KKK?
The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
equally?
Fitzjon
>fit...@earthlink.net (Fitzjon), in article
<fitzjon-1510...@ip229.charleston.sc.pub-ip.psi.net>, dixit:
>> ... I'm arguing
>>that bopping someone in the head because he cut you off in traffic is
>>fundmentally no different from bopping him in the head because he is "A"
>>or "B". Or, if you like, hunting him down and killing him because he is
>>"A" or "B" is fundamentally no different from following him home and
>>gunning him down in his driveway because he cut you off in traffic.
>
>Oh, but it is different. Bopping someone over the head because they
>are "A" sends a clear warning to every other person who is also "A"
>that they might be next. That they are on the acceptable hit list.
>That at any moment, without any warning, someone might bop them over
>the head. So they'd be a lot better off if they didn't look "A", or
>didn't act "A" or didn't go out in public and provoke anyone.
Could have phrased it better, probably. I meant that there is no difference,
in my view, between the physical acts themselves. The difficulty I have with
adding another 10- to 15-year jolt in prison because of motive is outlined
elsewhere in this thread.
>
>>Jeff (who saves for another day the difference between white supremacists
>>and Confederates.)
>
>Amen, brother! Been to NuSouth, btw? On Huger St., IIRC. I hope
>they're still around; the web site seems to have been taken over by a
>media firm. Ack! Shoulda bought 'em out more when I was there.
There's a NuSouth on Wentworth Street here in Charleston. Did you get one of
those sporty confederate-style flag patches with the pan-African "blood,
people and land" colors?
Jeff <--won't salute it, but it's mighty striking
Empress of Blandings
> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
> equally?
Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
inequities and working to correct them?
Bathsheba Grossman
>Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu>, in article <705c9t$mqt$1...@ux2.isu.edu>, dixit:
>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
>> equally?
>
>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
>inequities and working to correct them?
I think the way to correct them is to enforce laws - such as the ones
against murder - fairly and equally.
A hate crime law wouldn't be enforceable equally, because it would
posit additional penalties for hatred by particular people against
particular groups, when other people hating other groups would be
okay.
I don't think it's the job of government to list which groups are
particularly protected under the law, and I haven't seen any
discussion of hate crime legislation that doesn't propose doing that.
I don't know what the actual text of the proposed laws says, but I
can't imagine any wording that would both have any effect and avoid
listing groups.
-Sheba
Zoa Sculpture http://www.bathsheba.com/
Matthew Daly
said:
>mwd...@pobox.com, in article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>, dixit:
>>I'll never forget the time that s...@preferred.com (songbird) said:
>>> guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
>>>years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
>>>heard today that many states have already passed these laws
>>>with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
>>>on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
>
>>If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
>>course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
>>state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
>>funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
>
>Grump?
Uh-huh.
>Hate crimes stand as a warning to other members of the same hated
>group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
>the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
And if a rich person is assaulted and mugged downtown, it sends the same
warnings to all rich people. What's your point? That you "understand"
why a poor man would hurt a rich man more than why a homophobe would
hurt a homosexual?
>Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>deserved it, no big deal
Spare me. No crimes are played up as much as the victims would like.
When I was beaten and robbed, it was because I clearly looked as if I
had money. When my house was robbed a few weeks ago, the police
chastized me for having electronics in the front room of the house.
Didn't I know that people would peek through the slats in the shutters
and realize that I was a prime hit? I don't know where you should move
if you want to find police and criminal lawyers who give a shit about
you, but it's nowhere that I've ever lived. And they're not ignoring
you because you're a left-handed Jewish Latvian transsexual, they're
ignoring you becaues they're cops and they have their own lives.
>I think it's about time we served notice
>that our society will no longer tolerate, and does in fact take
>seriously that kind of assault.
Overprosecuting crimes committed against neglected minorities will not
make up for the fact that those same crimes used to be underprosecuted.
You're not going to unburn a black church or resurrect a beaten lesbian.
And maybe I've been reading different media from you, but I haven't
heard anyone say that the Wyoming case is "just some gay guy", and the
car-dragging death a few months back wasn't "just some n*****". I'm
glad that those thoughts aren't in evidence, but that's because of a
diverse media, not because of dumb laws.
Do we still live in a country were we can freely say "I hate Icks"? [1]
If I commit a crime against an Ick, and the point of whether I've ever
identified myself as an Ickphobe through my speech or my association is
an issue, then we don't, and that supression of thought is as chilling
as the self-censorship you would have had to perform yourself 30 years
ago. Remember "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"?
It applies to the KKK as much as to the NAACP.
[1] DISCLAIMER: I love Icks, some of my best friends are Icks.
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly mwd...@pobox.com http://www.frontiernet.net/~mwdaly/
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right - Ashleigh Brilliant
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
--- Support the anti-Spam amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org ---
Jo Walton
tedg...@worldnet.att.net "Ted Gavin" writes:
> I agree with that sentiment, and my statement, although just a'brimming
> with vigilantism, is not a wish for that to happen. It was a response
> to what I read as a plea for a lighter sentence for a man who tried to
> kill people due to their race. My sensitivities with regard to hate
> crimes are such that, IMHO, a person who has committed murder because of
> hate has chosen, in the most clear and irrevocable manner, to *not* be a
> member of American Society. Thus, I wash my hands of him, end of story.
> That his eventual experience in a prison where *he* is a minority will
> likely be that, or something similar, it is not what I was espousing.
> Rather, my statement is that I just don't care what happens to him.
>
> Does that mean that I want prisons to become open killing grounds where
> only the strong survive? No. Has that already happened? Maybe. But,
> would you read my statement differently if I had said "I wash my hands
> of him completely."
>
> If that is the case, then emotion and details are not my freend in that
> case.
Yes I would. What I'd have said is "let him suffer the utmost penalty of
the law". Whatever that is. But nothing beyond that, and what you said
_is_ beyond that.
> >What's prison for? A deterrent?
>
> If that is the case, it clearly does not work.
I don't know. It probably does for the sort of people who wouldn't
commit crimes anyway.
When I was researching British prisons a few years ago for an article I
was writing I found out that in many of them there is a TV in each cell,
high up above the door where it can't be reached by the (multiple)
occupants. It is turned on and off externally, with the lights - when
the light is on so is the TV. The channel cannot be changed.
I suppose other people may not find this as much of a deterrent as I
do. :]
> >Keeping people who are a danger to
> >society out of society?
>
> I feel that this is the most realistic approach in America today. It's
> basically a "sweeping under the carpet" of criminals, so someone *else*
> can worry about them later, when and if they are released.
It's a reasonable position to take, but if they're still a danger when
you let them out, it's pointless.
> >A chance to reform and learn better?
>
> No, the idea of the penitentiary system was abandoned years ago.
In Britain there are at least gestures towards this. Prisoners can
study for qualifications and have other training. There isn't enough
of it but the ones who get involved have a low recidivism rate. That's
misleading though because they're the ones who are motivated anyway,
a self-selected sample, but still better than nothing.
> >Or a punishment? If it is a punishment, then of what does that
> >punishment consist? The deprivation of liberty and free choice,
> >or in gang rape?
>
> Jo, gang rape was not the proscribed punishment. But, in reality, that
I know it's not the prescribed punishment, you were talking as if it
was, and I have seen so many other people talking like that on usenet
that I've decided I'm going to object when I see it from now on.
My point is that if it were the prescribed punishment it would be
rather horrible (imagine gang rape being organised by the authorities,
ick, that's like Iran) and Amnesty would object, and lots of people
would object, but at least it would be being done according to the
law.
> is a likely occurrence in a federal prison for a white male convicted of
> trying to kill black males because of hate. Same for a child molester.
> They are sufficiently low in the prison hierarchy that they will be
> *everyone's* target.
I don't know enough about your prison population to comment on that.
But in Britain it is the percieved weak people who get that treatment
- the murderers and rapists are raping the people convicted of fraud
and embezzlement, because this system is letting the thugs get control.
I accept your point that this guy would be a victim in the system. But
Joe B. Collar would be able to ally himself with others of his kind
and gang rape Icks with them, yes? Theoretically? Especially if Icks
are a minority in prison too?
> >If it is gang rape, then why are women convicted of
> >equal crimes not so punished? If it is gang rape then why is this
> >not mentioned in the sentencing?
> >
> Okay, let's replace the term "gang rape" with "shanking".
I don't even know what that means, sorry.
But I was being rhetorical in any case.
> >I'm getting really sick of seeing people say this sort of thing.
> >
> Well, let's keep in mind the context that I am not prescribing that as a
> punishment, rather I'm washing my hands of his existence in it's
> entirety. Does that make me uncivilized? I don't think so.
If he's not fit to be in society and society isn't making any effort to
reclaim him, then kill him cleanly. What Gwyddwr said too.
Perhaps
> this experience last Saturday evening colors my thoughts. A group of
> disaffected Generation X'ers who happened to be african-american decided
> that they wanted to drive the very car that I happened to be driving at
> the time, because I made the mistake of being caucasian in their
> neighborhood. Hate crime? No...opportunistic bottom-dwelling? Yup.
>
> The one with the gun prolly has a broken foot and some scars now, since
> the wheels were spinning pretty fast when they ran over his foot. They
> were spinning sufficiently fast enough that when it contacted his foot,
> the force spun him over onto the ground, hard. His friends were smart
> enough to get out of the way of the car when I floored the accelerator.
> But somehow, we've come from "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to "Having a
> Gun makes you the smartest person you've ever met". I don't theenk so.
>
> So, would I have run the fellow with the gun down, presumably killing
> him? Yup. (Did I try to? No, I did exactly what I intended to do.)
> Would I have felt horrible about it afterwards? Absolutely. Does that
> make me a vigilante? No, I was responding to a specific threat in a
> specific way, with a solitary act. I was *not* chasing someone down in
> a subway car, shooting, then continuing after they had been rendered
> harmless.
That's not being a vigilante. That's defending yourself. From what you
say here this sounds like you did the right thing.
My objection is to having a law that says one thing and a tacit assumption
that says another. You weren't breaking the law there - were you? (I assume
you'd not mention it here if you were, and that wouldn't be against the
law here even.)
> >OK, it happens. But when it happens it is an illegal abuse of the
> >system that should be punished, not something for people to regard
> >like that.
>
> I agree with that most wholeheartedly. My statement was, again, not a
> wish, rather a statement that reflects the reality of prison life in
> America today.
Fair enough. OK. I said this because I keep people saying it in what
seems to me to be an almost salacious way, as if it were the official
punishment, and your post just tripped the "too much" meter, though
it wasn't anything like as bad as many.
> >If he deserves to die, sentence him to death, if he deserves
> >torture, sentence him to that, if that's what society wants.
> >Don't sneak rape and assault in through the back door as an
> >acceptable punishment which will happen to _the weak_ while the
> >strong in prison enjoy perpetrating more crimes. Do you really
> >want to live in a country where that's something cheerfully
> >accepted?
>
> Unfortunately, the US *is* a country where that is ignorantly accepted.
> I don't say cheerfully, because I just don't think society in general
> realizes that it happens.
I've seen it said approvingly ("fling the bastards in jail where they'll
be gang-raped, that's what they deserve") a _lot_ of times on usenet
and I'm not reading groups where it's particularly on topic. I don't
believe it's any big secret.
Do I want it to go on? No. Do I recognize
> that it does go on? Yes. I bear witness, with utter frustration, that
> certain segments of the population, citing their religion, will dictate
> what is and what is not life to the rest of the population, but not a
> one of them is likely to give a damn about the ordinary criminal in an
> ordinary prison.
There's something very wrong there.
The politics of this country are such that we have
> elected Presidents and leaders who oppose abortion, but are pro
> death-penalty. Personally, I see that as a contradiction, but that is
> just my opinion.
I think Kris' explanation is probably the logic they are using.
> Hate crimes are a particular sore spot with me, because they represent
> the same levels of maniacal abandonment of civilization that has
> occurred time and time again throughout history. In the last sixty
> years, we have gone from Kristallnacht in Germany, to Bubba and Dave's
> Crystal Night Football Party and Jew burnin' in the southern US. I'm a
> little sick of people who are so weak as individuals that they need to
> blame someone else for all of their problems. My opinion is that a
> murder which is motivated by religion, race, or sexual preference of the
> victim should be a capital crime. Why? Because, as I said above, that
> person or person's have rejected the concept of society irrevocably.
> Capital Punishment does not work as a deterrent. It was intended to
> recognize that there are some people who commit some crimes so heinous,
> that they have given up their right to live in society, ever. I
> consider *that* to be barbarism, because of the laws in some states that
> dictate that if you kill a cop, you get the death penalty. That is
> clearly a deterrent, not an evaluation of the psyches of the criminals
> who do so, before the fact, en masse.
Why do you think it's worse to kill someone because they belong to a
group you hate than because you hate them as an individual?
I think it's better to judge each case on its merits.
> I would feel better if that sort of thing did not happen in prisons.
> But, it does.
>
> Ted, and I don't like it, either.
It does, and whenever you say that's what you want to happen to someone
you're condoning it. (Bet you think before saying it next time.)
Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller
>Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu>, in article <705c9t$mqt$1...@ux2.isu.edu>, dixit:
>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
>> equally?
>
>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
>inequities and working to correct them?
non-sequitor.
Eugenia
>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
>> equally?
>
>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
>inequities and working to correct them?
I'm sorry if you all feel insulted because I prefer to treat people
as individuals and not representatives of their groups as a whole.
I think it's time for a few choruses of Tom Lehrer's "National
Brotherhood Week".
Matthew Daly
said:
(Lots snipped out.)
>On 14 Oct 1998 11:14:46 -0400, "Fitzjon" <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>One of the issues that had been discussed in some legislative forums was
>that if an individual is able to be compelled to commit a crime purely
>out of hate, then they are more seriously in need of many different
>levels of adjustment than the Ordinary Decent Criminal. They won't get
>it in the Correctional System (not likely, anyway), but the point was
>that they were isolated from society for a longer period of time.
What's your point? You say they need more help than average, then admit
that as a result of that you're going to hurt them more than you
otherwise would. I think that if someone is a bigot, then putting them
into the most racially segregated communities in America (our prison
systems) for a longer time is assinine. What do you think?
>>Did Joe B. Collar go upside the Ick's head with a brickbat because he was
>>an Ick, and Icks are lazy, filthy, cheating whoresons (10 years) or because
>>the Ick cut him off in traffic and Joe didn't *know* he was an Ick (5
>>years, and shouldn't Icks have to wear some sort of colored triangle or
>>something?)
>>
>Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
>justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
>rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
>you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
>systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
>"B".
Intent is already built into the system. Popping someone in the head
because they cut you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry
from systematically hunting down and killing someone they cut you off in
traffic last week. That's the difference between third-degree
manslaughter and first degree murder.
>IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
>in a gang-rape in prison.
Lovely. The only difference between you and those convicted of hate
crimes is that they had the guts to do the act themselves. By contrast,
you hide behind a flawed correctional system to dispense the kind of
justice that you think that "depraved" people deserve.
>That step isn't in the path....the *speech* is protected. You can say
>anything you want, and damn near wherever you want. Your view, while
>well presented (to an extent) is merely an extension of the "Shout Fire
>in a Crowded Theater" debate. You can tell anyone at the corner bar
>that you "want" to do it. No crime there. You can go to the theater
>"wanting" to do it. No crime there, either. The minute you're stupid
>enough to open your mouth, tho', you've committed a crime.
If you get X years in prison for committing a crime, and X+Y years for
making a bigotted speech and then committing the crime, then the speech
is not protected.
Ocean Gypsy
>pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings) wrote:
>>Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu>, in article <705c9t$mqt$1...@ux2.isu.edu>,
dixit:
>>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
>>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
>>> equally?
>>
>>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
>>inequities and working to correct them?
>
> I'm sorry if you all feel insulted because I prefer to treat people
> as individuals and not representatives of their groups as a whole.
No reason to apologize - I don't think anyone is insulted (yet) over
anything in this thread and it certainly wouldn't be because you "prefer
to treat people as individuals and not representatives of their groups
as a whole".
"Hate" can very well be the *sole* motive of a crime such as murder and
as such, I see no reason why it shouldn't be weighted just as other
motivating factors are. 'Tis serious stuff when someone kills another
simply because they don't like 'em or decide that they're not equals.
Crys
-
Political correctness assumes we're morons who, if allowed to do
anything naughty, will immediately turn into unmanageable terrors.
-Bill Maher
Ted Gavin
>>>>tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>On 15 Oct 1998 00:48:17 -0400,
>fit...@earthlink.net (Fitzjon) wrote:
>>
>>>In article
><362a512e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14 Oct 1998 11:14:46 -0400, "Fitzjon"
><fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
Gives credit to songbird for the birth of Joe Collar and the Uppity
Icks. Thanks songbird...*chirp!*
>[snip example...Klansman wounds three black youths in a drive-by, sentenced
>to 25.5 years under a federal hate crimes statute...and a tip o' the
>scissors to songbird, who provided the hypothetical Joe B. Collar, by all
>accounts a racist and anti-Ickite, who does violence to an Ick without
>knowing his victim was an Ick....]
>>>> >The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
>>>> >renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his
>>>> >victims.That earned him no mercy. Because his crime was motivated by racism,
And there's the rub. It was the political beliefs (the "hate") that
provided the framework (the "motive") for the crime. Thus, it was a
hate crime.
>Consider an alternative set of
>facts: Let's suppose for a moment that the defendant is a young black man
>who sprayed the same crowd with bullets, wounding the same three people, and
>he tells police he did it because, say, the people who frequent that club
>were not staying in their own neighborhood. Exactly the same criminal act as
>our young Klansman, but nowhere near 25.5 years without parole in federal
>prison for a hate-crime conviction.
>
And there is unfairness in that, I grant you. Gangland warfare is a
form of hate crime as well. But, there is a minor, although marked,
difference. The victims in that case would be identifiable by their
colors (gang colors, not racial skin pigment), presumably. That makes
them stand out. It readily identifies them as non-innocent
third-parties. But, take those away. A black person killing an
innocent third party on the street, in the victims own neighborhood,
simply because they existed in the "enemy" neighborhood, would be more
comparable.
Yes, I know it's a thin distinction...but it *does* exist.
>>>>[more snippage]....I don't give much of a damn if someone is racist, or
>>>> anti-semitic, whatever. Just as long as they have the cojones to admit
>>>> it. I respect the fact that they have their own ideas, no matter how
>>>> unfounded. But, the minute someone decides to vandalize a synagogue
>>>> (private property), or bomb a church (private property, endangering
>>>> lives, killing people), or torturing and killing someone (...duh!), it
>>>> is no longer a protected form of expression. Period. Because it has
>>>> inexorably involved innocent third-parties.
>>>
>>>My argument is that turbocharging a prison sentence because a crime was
>>>motivated by a wrongheaded interpretation of an idea is a backhanded
>>>attack on the First Amendment.
>>
>>How is a person listening to "Go kill whitey" (just an isolated
>>example), who then does it, and gets sentenced for a hate crime, an
>>attack on the First Amendment? It does not represent an encroachment
>>upon the criminal's public association, religion, or speech, nor any of
>>the other tenants of that article. It does, however, take into
>>consideration zir motivation. Just as there is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree
>>homicide, there is also a hate-homicide, which represents a different
>>level of predetermination of a criminal act.
>
>What different level would that be? How is murder motivated by political
>belief worse than murder motivated by jealousy?
>
I can't answer for anyone other than myself, so I certainly can't
comment on the rationale for the law, but IMO, a person who commits a
crime for beliefs is more likely to do the same again, regardless of
incarceration. A crime of passion (jealousy, road rage, etc...) is
nearly always an isolated single act on the part of the perp. Frex, if
I kill someone for cutting me off in traffic, I'm not likely to want to
kill *all* bad drivers, whether or not I have ever interacted with them.
If it were a hate crime, that would be a targeted end, in this example.
>>>The right to hold and express failed, discredited or even potentially
>>>dangerous ideas exists apart from how people choose to act on those
>>>ideas. Of course firebombing a church isn't a protected form of
>>>expression. It's arson and perhaps even attempted murder. Period.
>>>And there *already* are laws on the books - and punishments
>>>aplenty - to deal with every type of criminal behavior you
>>>describe.
>>>
>>It seems that we agree on the substance, but not the angle. You're
>>concern, if I'm reading you correctly, is the danger of the systematic
>>suppression of Freedom of Speech down to the level of the Cleansing of
>>what are considered "politic ideas". Basically, Joe Collar goes to jail
>>cause he thought about how he would be better off if he capped a coupla
>>Icks. If that is the case, I agree with you.
>[snip]
>
>Yes, with this modification: Joe Collar goes to jail for a longer period of
>time than he would for the same crime absent the political motivation. And
>remember songbird's scenario - Joe gets the hate crime treatment because of
>his professed loathing of all things Ick, though he was allegedly unaware of
>his victim's heritage. It becomes a First Amendment problem because marrying
>political ideas to criminal acts becomes easier to do with practice and
>precedent. The next step might be banning neo-fascist rallies because of the
>potential for concomitant criminal behavior.
>
Personally, I don't see *that* happening, and would be rather distraught
if it did. The Court has already ruled on free speech, even when
offensive to the "broad spectrum of the population". They have ruled it
acceptable. In ways that are astonishing. But let's move beyond
political ideas. Hatred on the basis of gender, sexual orientation,
race, or religion is not a political ideal. It is not a framework from
which to guide a nation, state, community. It is a societal ideal,
through which a better "society" can be achieved <snort!>
>The slope gets mighty slippery after that.
>
Yer right. It does. I still believe that the prosecution has to have a
mighty hard burden of proof to be able to pull off the whole "hate
crime" thing. But, the crimes *do* exist. The problem is, there have
been no test cases to determine the proper burden of proof of motive, so
that is largely left up to individual juries.
Interestingly, I was having a phone conversation this morning with
SWDNTTBB, and she argued that gender cannot be a basis for a hate crime.
In my example in another post in this thread in response to Jo, I cited
the misogynist as an example. SWDNTTBB claimed his crime would be
serial rather than hate. The U.S. House of Representatives announced
today that gender *would* be a qualifying consideration in the
evaluation o an act as a "hate crime".
Ted, I agree with that, but what's next. Height?
Ted Gavin http://home.att.net/~tedgavin
-----------------------------------------------------
A philosopher is like a blind man in a dark room searching
for a black cat which isn't there . . . and finding it.
Ted Gavin
>In article <3627e868...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
> tedg...@worldnet.att.net "Ted Gavin" writes:
>
>> Does that mean that I want prisons to become open killing grounds where
>> only the strong survive? No. Has that already happened? Maybe. But,
>> would you read my statement differently if I had said "I wash my hands
>> of him completely."
>>
>> If that is the case, then emotion and details are not my freend in that
>> case.
>
>Yes I would. What I'd have said is "let him suffer the utmost penalty of
>the law". Whatever that is. But nothing beyond that, and what you said
>_is_ beyond that.
>
Okay..perhaps the point was that he had broken the law in a particularly
heinous manner, and therefore, should live the life he chose for himself
in doing so. That such a life exists in prison, with all of it's
pitfalls, is just the way it is. Ideally, it would be an environment
where he could get his life in order, and not have to fear for his life.
>> >What's prison for? A deterrent?
>>
>> If that is the case, it clearly does not work.
>
>I don't know. It probably does for the sort of people who wouldn't
>commit crimes anyway.
>
Well, yes....but if it does not deter the group that needs to be
deterred, is it a deterrent? (that was starting to turn into a Gilbert
& Sullivan verse!)
>When I was researching British prisons a few years ago for an article I
>was writing I found out that in many of them there is a TV in each cell,
>high up above the door where it can't be reached by the (multiple)
>occupants. It is turned on and off externally, with the lights - when
>the light is on so is the TV. The channel cannot be changed.
>
>I suppose other people may not find this as much of a deterrent as I
>do. :]
>
If you can rent a particularly wonderfully awful American film called
"PCU", there is a similar torture sequence involving a cocktail
reception, a CD player, and the song "Afternoon Delight"
>> >Keeping people who are a danger to society out of society?
>>
>> I feel that this is the most realistic approach in America today. It's
>> basically a "sweeping under the carpet" of criminals, so someone *else*
>> can worry about them later, when and if they are released.
>
>It's a reasonable position to take, but if they're still a danger when
>you let them out, it's pointless.
>
Exactly my point.
>> >A chance to reform and learn better?
>>
>> No, the idea of the penitentiary system was abandoned years ago.
>
>In Britain there are at least gestures towards this. Prisoners can
>study for qualifications and have other training. There isn't enough
>of it but the ones who get involved have a low recidivism rate. That's
>misleading though because they're the ones who are motivated anyway,
>a self-selected sample, but still better than nothing.
>
True. In Charles Dickens' first visit to America, he toured Eastern
State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia. It was the first of the
"Penitentiaries" in the US. Prisoners were locked in individual rooms
with a bible, and fed daily. They were supposed to repent by
reflecting, and in that, finding G-d again. They gave up on that some
time ago. I agree with the statement that a society can best be judged
by its prisons, and US prisons tend to accurately reflect some segments
of American Society these days.
>> >Or a punishment? If it is a punishment, then of what does that
>> >punishment consist? The deprivation of liberty and free choice,
>> >or in gang rape?
>>
>> Jo, gang rape was not the proscribed punishment. But, in reality, that
>
>I know it's not the prescribed punishment, you were talking as if it
>was, and I have seen so many other people talking like that on usenet
>that I've decided I'm going to object when I see it from now on.
>
A good plan on your part. Accepting that I am not other people, and I
had never seen it on usenet before. Not that I subscribe to that many
groups, so I just haven't been exposed to it.
>My point is that if it were the prescribed punishment it would be
>rather horrible (imagine gang rape being organised by the authorities,
>ick, that's like Iran) and Amnesty would object, and lots of people
>would object, but at least it would be being done according to the
>law.
>
Yes, any type of physical torture, as mandated by the State, is
horrendous. My statement was merely a reflection of what *could* happen
to him, given his situation, in the prisons he would be living in.
>> is a likely occurrence in a federal prison for a white male convicted of
>> trying to kill black males because of hate. Same for a child molester.
>> They are sufficiently low in the prison hierarchy that they will be
>> *everyone's* target.
>
>I don't know enough about your prison population to comment on that.
>But in Britain it is the percieved weak people who get that treatment
>- the murderers and rapists are raping the people convicted of fraud
>and embezzlement, because this system is letting the thugs get control.
>
That happens here, too...although they occasionally do not go to the
same prisons, or are housed separately from violent criminals. Thus, a
separate hierarchy exists amount that group.
>I accept your point that this guy would be a victim in the system. But
>Joe B. Collar would be able to ally himself with others of his kind
>and gang rape Icks with them, yes? Theoretically? Especially if Icks
>are a minority in prison too?
>
Yup. That is absolutely correct. In fact, White Supremacists have a
tremendous prison movement, too. Generally, if they bind to ideal that
puts them at odds with the law on the outside, they're likely to bind
together on the inside.
>> >If it is gang rape, then why are women convicted of
>> >equal crimes not so punished? If it is gang rape then why is this
>> >not mentioned in the sentencing?
>> >
>> Okay, let's replace the term "gang rape" with "shanking".
>
>I don't even know what that means, sorry.
>
stabbing. But you were being rhetorical :-)
>> >I'm getting really sick of seeing people say this sort of thing.
>> >
>> Well, let's keep in mind the context that I am not prescribing that as a
>> punishment, rather I'm washing my hands of his existence in it's
>> entirety. Does that make me uncivilized? I don't think so.
>
>If he's not fit to be in society and society isn't making any effort to
>reclaim him, then kill him cleanly. What Gwyddwr said too.
>
Yes, and in reflecting upon what Gwyddwr wrote, I can admit that my
sentiment is colored by the emotion I feel regarding the crime. So
perhaps I have not "washed my hands" at the entire existence. The act
he committed does stick in my craw, as does the instance in Wyoming, as
do the many others that are hate crimes. In examining this today, I
arrived at the conclusion that my own cultural heritage leads me to be a
bit hypersensitive when it comes to cultural hate.
]snip...]
>>>OK, it happens. But when it happens it is an illegal abuse of the
>>>system that should be punished, not something for people to regard
>>>like that.
>>
>> I agree with that most wholeheartedly. My statement was, again, not a
>> wish, rather a statement that reflects the reality of prison life in
>> America today.
>
>Fair enough. OK. I said this because I keep people saying it in what
>seems to me to be an almost salacious way, as if it were the official
>punishment, and your post just tripped the "too much" meter, though
>it wasn't anything like as bad as many.
>
Well, at least *that's* good to know <whew!>
[snip...]
>> Do I want it to go on? No. Do I recognize
>> that it does go on? Yes. I bear witness, with utter frustration, that
>> certain segments of the population, citing their religion, will dictate
>> what is and what is not life to the rest of the population, but not a
>> one of them is likely to give a damn about the ordinary criminal in an
>> ordinary prison.
>
>There's something very wrong there.
>
Yes, there is.
>> The politics of this country are such that we have
>> elected Presidents and leaders who oppose abortion, but are pro
>> death-penalty. Personally, I see that as a contradiction, but that is
>> just my opinion.
>
>I think Kris' explanation is probably the logic they are using.
I agree with that. Kris covered it well.
>> Hate crimes are a particular sore spot with me, because they represent
>> the same levels of maniacal abandonment of civilization that has
>> occurred time and time again throughout history. In the last sixty
>> years, we have gone from Kristallnacht in Germany, to Bubba and Dave's
>> Crystal Night Football Party and Jew burnin' in the southern US. I'm a
>> little sick of people who are so weak as individuals that they need to
>> blame someone else for all of their problems. My opinion is that a
>> murder which is motivated by religion, race, or sexual preference of the
>> victim should be a capital crime. Why? Because, as I said above, that
>> person or person's have rejected the concept of society irrevocably.
>> Capital Punishment does not work as a deterrent. It was intended to
>> recognize that there are some people who commit some crimes so heinous,
>> that they have given up their right to live in society, ever. I
>> consider *that* to be barbarism, because of the laws in some states that
>> dictate that if you kill a cop, you get the death penalty. That is
>> clearly a deterrent, not an evaluation of the psyches of the criminals
>> who do so, before the fact, en masse.
>
>Why do you think it's worse to kill someone because they belong to a
>group you hate than because you hate them as an individual?
>
Well, I'm repeating what I just typed in another post, but here goes...
If Joe Collar kills an Ick, knowing that the victim is an Ick, because
he hates Icks, IMHO, he is likely to continue to do so, regardless of
incarceration. His motivation is persistent and the crime is merely one
incident in a means to an end.
If Joe Collar kills an Ick, not being aware that it is an Ick, but kills
him in a crime of passion (road rage, jealousy, barroom anger), there is
not an agenda in place, as it is an isolated incident. If I anger
someone, who decides to kill someone, they are not likely to follow up
by wanting to kill all people named Ted. But, if a person kills me
because I'm Irish, or Russian, or a Jew, then they have a context in
place to continue that action in the future. That is why it is a more
heinous act.
>I think it's better to judge each case on its merits.
>
Of course. And in each case, it would have to be proven that the
motivation and context existed to make it a hate crime.
>> I would feel better if that sort of thing did not happen in prisons.
>> But, it does.
>>
>> Ted, and I don't like it, either.
>
>It does, and whenever you say that's what you want to happen to someone
>you're condoning it. (Bet you think before saying it next time.)
<sigh> I was right. Emotion was not my freend last night.
Ted...smoochies to you, Jo!
Ted Gavin http://home.att.net/~tedgavin
-----------------------------------------------------
dun...@hotmail.com
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> In article <702ejc$hke$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Fitzjon <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >
> >But.....the victims were young black folk, shot with an assault rifle
> >outside a nightclub *because* they were young black folk, shot by an
> >ignorant young Klansman fueled by the rhetoric at a Confederate flag rally
> >earlier in the day....for all those reasons, the young man was charged
> >under federal hate crimes statutes and sentenced to 25.5 years in a federal
> >pen. Without parole.
>
> Well boo hoo. If you're going to get all charged up by rhetoric to
> the point you go out and hurt or kill innocent people, then
> you deserve whatever happens to you.
>
A hearty second to that.
But.
> I do see a difference between someone who commits a robbery and ends
> up hurting someone as a result, or someone who loses their temper in
> traffic and kills some poor slob who cut them off, and someone who
> sets out to commit violence aimed at someone because of what that
> person represents.
>
> You mentioned free speech earlier. Well, perpetrating violence
> motivated by hatred is on very effective way of curtailing someone
> elses free speech (for your values of speech).
>
What you seem to be missing is the largest perpetrator of violence in this
scenario -- the government. You are advocating that the government be handed
the tools (hate crime laws) to cast a wider and _more_ _subjective_ circle of
oppression.
I'm looking at this from the perspective of the practical application of
these laws. The death penalty laws are a very very useful model. The use of
the death penalty is limited in all of the states that have it to crimes that
are "particularly heinous" or other similarly subjective language. Like
pornography, the lawmakers have been unable to come up with a precise
definition of a death-penalty-deserving-crime. So the jury must decide
whether the crime in front of them is "particularly heinous." Guess what.
The implementation of the death penalty in this country is overwhelmingly
racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the death penalty if you
are a black person who killed a white person than for any other combination
of perp/victim.
What this tells me is that judges and juries use their own prejudices to make
decisions. So with hate crime laws, you propose to put the force of
government behind the judgment of various judges and juries and what they
consider to have been motivated by bigotry. The judgments under this law
will reflect -- _not_ change -- the prejudices and bigotries of the majority
culture.
> >The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
> >renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
>
> You know, I'd do or say just about anything in order to stay out of
> jail. I suspect most people would as well.
>
> It's funny to hear the type of people who are usually the lock em up
> and throw away the key kinds of people start to get all upset at
> increased sentencing with regards to hate crimes.
>
You're awfully quick to throw around "type of people" there. One might even
suspect that you're bigotted against that "type of people."
> Violence should *never* be used to oppress others. Sadly, it all too
> often is.
>
The government uses violence to oppress every day. Do you think that's an
unequivocally bad thing?
--
Kristen
Ted Gavin
>I'll never forget the time that tedg...@worldnet.att.net (Ted Gavin)
>said:
>
>(Lots snipped out.)
>
>>On 14 Oct 1998 11:14:46 -0400, "Fitzjon" <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>One of the issues that had been discussed in some legislative forums was
>>that if an individual is able to be compelled to commit a crime purely
>>out of hate, then they are more seriously in need of many different
>>levels of adjustment than the Ordinary Decent Criminal. They won't get
>>it in the Correctional System (not likely, anyway), but the point was
>>that they were isolated from society for a longer period of time.
>
>What's your point? You say they need more help than average, then admit
>that as a result of that you're going to hurt them more than you
>otherwise would. I think that if someone is a bigot, then putting them
>into the most racially segregated communities in America (our prison
>systems) for a longer time is assinine. What do you think?
>
Since it's already been answered in other posts in this thread, I'll
recap. The justice system sets out guidelines for dealing with crimes.
That those penalties do not necessarily afford society of anything other
than having the person locked away for a longer period of time is, IMHO,
meaningless. I didn't say that I espoused that logic. I only said it
exists. My thoughts, since you asked, are that hate crime exists, that
it should be an incredibly difficult burden to prove, and when proven,
hate-motivated murder should be a capital crime. Period. But, that's
only my opinion.
>>>Did Joe B. Collar go upside the Ick's head with a brickbat because he was
>>>an Ick, and Icks are lazy, filthy, cheating whoresons (10 years) or because
>>>the Ick cut him off in traffic and Joe didn't *know* he was an Ick (5
>>>years, and shouldn't Icks have to wear some sort of colored triangle or
>>>something?)
>>>
>>Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
>>justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
>>rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
>>you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
>>systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
>>"B".
>
>Intent is already built into the system. Popping someone in the head
>because they cut you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry
>from systematically hunting down and killing someone they cut you off in
>traffic last week. That's the difference between third-degree
>manslaughter and first degree murder.
>
My point exactly, also made in another post. And just as there is
Manslaughter, 3rd degree, 2nd degree, and 1st degree homicide, there
would also be "hate-homicide".
>>IMNSHO, and this ain't pretty, and it ain't PC...fuck him...let him die
>>in a gang-rape in prison.
>
>Lovely. The only difference between you and those convicted of hate
>crimes is that they had the guts to do the act themselves. By contrast,
>you hide behind a flawed correctional system to dispense the kind of
>justice that you think that "depraved" people deserve.
>
No. Just because I recognize that such a thing is likely to happen to
him in prison does not mean I condone it. If I thought he would while
away the next 25.5 years in a cell, by himself, being Joe the Prisoner,
I'd be perfectly happy with that. My statement, admittedly emotional,
is a direct reflection of my feelings toward those who commit hate
crimes. They chose to commit a crime. They bear the consequences. If
life in prisons is out of control (clearly, it is), and they are to join
that society (which they are) then they are to suffer the consequences
of that society (my example). That does *not* make the fact that it
happens right. But, it does happen. But, I'm repeating myself in other
posts.
>>That step isn't in the path....the *speech* is protected. You can say
>>anything you want, and damn near wherever you want. Your view, while
>>well presented (to an extent) is merely an extension of the "Shout Fire
>>in a Crowded Theater" debate. You can tell anyone at the corner bar
>>that you "want" to do it. No crime there. You can go to the theater
>>"wanting" to do it. No crime there, either. The minute you're stupid
>>enough to open your mouth, tho', you've committed a crime.
>
>If you get X years in prison for committing a crime, and X+Y years for
>making a bigotted speech and then committing the crime, then the speech
>is not protected.
>
a hate crime is not (should not be?) a crime committed against a person
based on the characteristics they possess, conveniently after a speech.
The crime would have been committed whether the speech occurred or not.
That's my entire point, which I have been making. The aspect that makes
it a hate crime is the pure mobility of the intent within a broad range
of the spectrum. You hate Icks. You want them dead. You _DON'T NEED A
SPEECH TO WANT THEM DEAD!_ You DON'T NEED A SPEECH TO KILL THEM! You
don't even need to know that anyone else out there feels the same way
you do. The person who gave the speech, if it existed, is _NOT_ the
person guilty of the crime. The person who kills the Ick is.
It isn't about speech. It's about being able to exist alongside people
who you don't agree with, but must *live* with. Because it is what is
required of an integrated society.
Ted, a touchy subject?
Ocean Gypsy
<snip other stuff that I mostly agree with...>
>The implementation of the death penalty in this country is
>overwhelmingly racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the
>death penalty if you are a black person who killed a white person than
>for any other combination of perp/victim.
I'm not real comfortable with this kind of a statistic, particularly
labeling it as "racist".
Is the black/Hispanic population in prisons so high because they are
racially discriminated against or is it because they commit more crimes?
Do they commit more crimes because they live in poverty and is
it considered "racist" because they wouldn't be living in poverty unless
there was discrimination? Do fewer whites wind up in prison because of
some kind of discrimination? I've never been able to come to a
satisfactory conclusion about this, although I have seen it labeled as
"racist" frequently.
Taking NJ for an example, I don't think your figure of 8 times as likely
is accurate. I think it's probably not far from even - I know that the
longest resident of death row is white (Marshall), Beigenwald (sp?) who
should be staked on a spit is white, Megan Kanka's killer is white and
two or more are as well for a relatively small (under 20) population.
I dunno...while I abhor government oppression, I can't agree that this
one is clear cut in that arena. I do think that there is a lot of work
that needs to be done in this area that makes things more fair, however.
Crys, who sez congrats
Seth Breidbart
>Society claims the right to lock this person up, because he
>broke the rules. But to say that the rules apply to him is
>in itself an implicit claim that he remains a member of
>society.
Why? Society protects itself; in fact, it tends to treat non-members
more harshly than members. (A dog will be killed for two
non-injurious bites.)
> If he's genuinely not a member of society, I don't
>see how society has any business trying to control him;
Self-defense.
> if
>society believes that it has rights over him (or, and I
>haven't decided yet to my own satisfaction whether this is
>entirely equivalent, that he has obligations to it), then I
>think it should obey its own rules and fulfil the obligation
>to protect him from crime.
I agree that it should.
Seth
bikerbabe in black leather
> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
>
>> I do see a difference between someone who commits a robbery and ends
>> up hurting someone as a result, or someone who loses their temper in
>> traffic and kills some poor slob who cut them off, and someone who
>> sets out to commit violence aimed at someone because of what that
>> person represents.
>>
>> You mentioned free speech earlier. Well, perpetrating violence
>> motivated by hatred is on very effective way of curtailing someone
>> elses free speech (for your values of speech).
>>
>
>What you seem to be missing is the largest perpetrator of violence in this
>scenario -- the government. You are advocating that the government be handed
>the tools (hate crime laws) to cast a wider and _more_ _subjective_ circle of
>oppression.
You're sort of cancelling your own argument by saying "the government
be handed the tools to increase their oppression. So, are we, or are
we not in control of the government?
>I'm looking at this from the perspective of the practical application of
>these laws. The death penalty laws are a very very useful model. The use of
>the death penalty is limited in all of the states that have it to crimes that
>are "particularly heinous" or other similarly subjective language. Like
>pornography, the lawmakers have been unable to come up with a precise
>definition of a death-penalty-deserving-crime. So the jury must decide
>whether the crime in front of them is "particularly heinous." Guess what.
>The implementation of the death penalty in this country is overwhelmingly
>racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the death penalty if you
>are a black person who killed a white person than for any other combination
>of perp/victim.
And this relates, how?
>What this tells me is that judges and juries use their own prejudices to make
>decisions. So with hate crime laws, you propose to put the force of
>government behind the judgment of various judges and juries and what they
>consider to have been motivated by bigotry. The judgments under this law
>will reflect -- _not_ change -- the prejudices and bigotries of the majority
>culture.
I'm missing the logical leap it took to make this
connection. Seriously.
>
>> >The boy (he was 18 when the shootings occurred, 20 at his sentencing)
>> >renounced his ties to the Klan, confessed and apologized to his victims.
>>
>> You know, I'd do or say just about anything in order to stay out of
>> jail. I suspect most people would as well.
>>
>> It's funny to hear the type of people who are usually the lock em up
>> and throw away the key kinds of people start to get all upset at
>> increased sentencing with regards to hate crimes.
>>
>
>You're awfully quick to throw around "type of people" there. One might even
>suspect that you're bigotted against that "type of people."
Oooh, that's a good tactic, throw the bigot label around. Good one!
Are you sure you aren't just intolerant for calling me a bigot?
:-)
>> Violence should *never* be used to oppress others. Sadly, it all too
>> often is.
>The government uses violence to oppress every day. Do you think that's an
>unequivocally bad thing?
If you post an almost completely irrelevant point, should I think it's
unequivocally a bad thing? Or because the government does it, it
makes it ok? Is that what you're saying?
I'm really trying here, I read your
post carefully several times and I simply was unable to follow your
reasoning. Arguably, it's a reflection on my intelligence and ability
to form coherent thought, I won't deny the probability.
I'm very willing to listen to arguments on either side, but when I
went through this subject in a law class a couple of years ago, the
professor made some very persuasive arguments for them, and I've not
heard anything since that effectively counters them. I've heard a lot
of emotional appeal on both sides, I've heard a lot of poorly thought
out arguments, or arguments that demonstrated to me that the person
arguing has a very poor understanding of the actual legislation. Of
course, if any have appeared in this thread beyond the first couple of
days, I've missed them since the thread has grown larger than my
willingness to try to wade through all the various arguments so I'm
only catching snippets here and there.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I'll never forget the time that s...@preferred.com (songbird) said:
>
>> yeah, i know i'm following up my own post. *snicker*
>>
>> guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
>>years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
>>heard today that many states have already passed these laws
>>with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
>>on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
>
>If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
>course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
>state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
>funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
>Our local NPR station had a story this morning on the legislative leader
>who is keeping it from passing. Despite being a tough-on-crime kinda
>guy, he doesn't see how someone who hates is going to be deterred from
>manifesting his bigotry because of an extra jail sentence, especially
>for a crime like the Wyoming case that is exactly why the death penalty
>is back in vogue.
I confess that I have been falling asleep before the 11 pm ATC rebroadcast
here. Are the Wyoming morons up for the Big Sleep or life as Bubba's
bitch?
>(He also noted that NY judges have the latitude to
>add additional jail time onto the maximum sentence if the judge feels
>that extenuating circumstances exist, so the lack of formal hate crime
>laws isn't a barrier.)
Q: do y'all have judicial recall there?
> And I don't know how you prove that a crime was
>motivated by bigotry without really chilling rights like freedom of
>speech and freedom of assembly.
In this case I'm thinking that NOTHING would have worked as a deterrent.
Beating the living shit out of someone and leaving them out in a remote
area in the cold is entirely chargeable in all jurisdictions in the US and
the penalties get worse if the victim dies. Didn't stop these fucknuts.
I don't think a neuron would have fired off to remind them, "Hey, I could
get in even more trouble because it's a "hate crime"". They did the
typical fucking stupid criminal thing and didn't think there would be a
problem. IMO, if they were capable of *reasoning*, they wouldn't have
done any of it in the first place and would have keyed the guy's car or
something if they were still upset. (Not that I think that's an
appropriate response to someone making a "pass" at you, mind.)
I hope the DA throws the book at them. And then they get whomped by a
civil suit.
C(joining Eugenia in singing "National Brotherhood Week")LB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
Ray Henry
: In article <362a512e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
: tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:> Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
:> justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
:> rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
:> you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
:> systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
:> "B".
: Of course it's a far cry. That's not the comparison I made. I'm arguing
: that bopping someone in the head because he cut you off in traffic is
: fundmentally no different from bopping him in the head because he is "A"
: or "B". Or, if you like, hunting him down and killing him because he is
: "A" or "B" is fundamentally no different from following him home and
: gunning him down in his driveway because he cut you off in traffic.
I read the above a little differently, originally. In my area, "popping
him in the head" is a euphemism for "shooting him in the head". In the
context expressed here, I would agree that bopping someone on the noggin
is a far cry from killing zir. Apart from that, I'd have to stand by my
previous followup.
Antryg - Regional slang makes for an interesting context filter. *grin*
--
ant...@pobox.com - Is your lifestyle Y2K compliant?
http://www.pobox.com/~antryg (sadly outdated)
Fitzjon
In article <36277646...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
tedg...@worldnet.att.net (Ted Gavin) wrote:
>On 15 Oct 1998 10:00:37 -0400, "Fitzjon" <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>On 15 Oct 1998 00:48:17 -0400,
>Gives credit to songbird for the birth of Joe Collar and the Uppity
>Icks. Thanks songbird...*chirp!*
>
[....most of the post excised....]
>>>...You're concern, if I'm reading you correctly, is the danger of the
systematic
>>>suppression of Freedom of Speech down to the level of the Cleansing of
>>>what are considered "politic ideas". Basically, Joe Collar goes to jail
>>>cause he thought about how he would be better off if he capped a coupla
>>>Icks. If that is the case, I agree with you.
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Yes, with this modification: Joe Collar goes to jail for a longer period
of
>>time than he would for the same crime absent the political motivation. And
>>remember songbird's scenario - Joe gets the hate crime treatment because
of
>>his professed loathing of all things Ick, though he was allegedly unaware
of
>>his victim's heritage. It becomes a First Amendment problem because
marrying
>>political ideas to criminal acts becomes easier to do with practice and
>>precedent. The next step might be banning neo-fascist rallies because of
the
>>potential for concomitant criminal behavior.
>>
>Personally, I don't see *that* happening, and would be rather distraught
>if it did. The Court has already ruled on free speech, even when
>offensive to the "broad spectrum of the population". They have ruled it
>acceptable. In ways that are astonishing.
>
I would be more than distraught if it did, and don't believe for a moment
that It Can't Happen Here. In my view, if people wait until their own ideas
are threatened before taking a stand against speech control, then they've
already lost.
Jeff <--Think I'm gonna like this group
Fitzjon
In article <706rie$ltu$2...@news1.rmi.net>, Ray Henry <ant...@shell.rmi.net>
wrote:
>Fitzjon <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: In article <362a512e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>: tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>[snip]
>:> Not the point. The point is that if there is a prevailing reason to
>:> justify the crime, or not justify the crime, it is not a random act,
>:> rather a deliberate one. Popping someone in the head because they cut
>:> you off in traffic and you were seeing red is a far cry from
>:> systematically hunting down and killing someone because they are "A" or
>:> "B".
>
>: Of course it's a far cry. That's not the comparison I made. I'm arguing
>: that bopping someone in the head because he cut you off in traffic is
>: fundmentally no different from bopping him in the head because he is "A"
>: or "B". Or, if you like, hunting him down and killing him because he is
>: "A" or "B" is fundamentally no different from following him home and
>: gunning him down in his driveway because he cut you off in traffic.
>
>I read the above a little differently, originally. In my area, "popping
>him in the head" is a euphemism for "shooting him in the head". In the
>context expressed here, I would agree that bopping someone on the noggin
>is a far cry from killing zir. Apart from that, I'd have to stand by my
>previous followup.
>
Good point......interesting how details can sometimes get lost in the roil.
Jeff <--Are brickbats found in other parts of the world?
dun...@hotmail.com
crys...@exit109.com (Ocean Gypsy) wrote:
> In article <7060ai$84s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dun...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >The implementation of the death penalty in this country is
> >overwhelmingly racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the
> >death penalty if you are a black person who killed a white person than
> >for any other combination of perp/victim.
>
> labeling it as "racist".
>
> Is the black/Hispanic population in prisons so high because they are
> racially discriminated against or is it because they commit more crimes?
> Do they commit more crimes because they live in poverty and is
> it considered "racist" because they wouldn't be living in poverty unless
> there was discrimination? Do fewer whites wind up in prison because of
> some kind of discrimination? I've never been able to come to a
> satisfactory conclusion about this, although I have seen it labeled as
> "racist" frequently.
>
> Taking NJ for an example, I don't think your figure of 8 times as likely
> is accurate.
It's a nationwide figure, and I think there's a key thing here that you mebbe
missed. The stat is not that blacks are 8 times more likely to be on death
row than whites. It's that blacks who commit capital crimes against whites
are 8 times more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks who commit
crimes against blacks, whites who commit crimes against whites, or whites who
commit crimes against blacks.
"Particularly heinous" is in the mind of the beholder, and apparently (again,
nationwide) the most particularly heinous crime is when a black person kills a
white person.
I think *that* reflects the racism of the judges and juries who made those
decisions. No, I don't think putting black people in jail is inherently
racist nor do I think there should be any sort of affirmative action for
implementing the death penalty. Far from it. I think that laws that call
upon judges and juries to make a subjective value judgment -- like
"particularly heinous" or "motivated by bigotry/hate" -- reinforce and
reflect existing values and/or prejudices. I don't think you can legislate
morality, and I don't think the hate crime laws can or will change anything
for the better.
[snip]
>
> I dunno...while I abhor government oppression, I can't agree that this
> one is clear cut in that arena. I do think that there is a lot of work
> that needs to be done in this area that makes things more fair, however.
>
Well, I guess a big part of my point was that the government is Us and we are
the Government. The implementation of this law will be no better or worse
than the average person's bigotries.
> Crys, who sez congrats
>
>
Thankewe. 'Twas wonderful. The very best part was enjoying the meeting of my
family with friends that I've know for 16 years, or 8 years, or even 3 or 4
years ... and watching them all have such a great time together. Loved it.
Loveditloveditlovedit.
--
Kristen, and I've got peeeeeectures
Matthew Daly
in black leather) said:
>In article <7060ai$84s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>You're awfully quick to throw around "type of people" there. One might even
>>suspect that you're bigotted against that "type of people."
>
>Oooh, that's a good tactic, throw the bigot label around. Good one!
>
>Are you sure you aren't just intolerant for calling me a bigot?
>
>:-)
I hear it too. "They don't deserve to share the fruits of society with
decent folks like us. We have the power to punish them for what they
do, and we are within our right to do so. If they didn't want to be
punished by us, they shouldn't act the way they do (which is their
choice, after all). Buncha sickoes, they are." I assume that you hear
words like these if you were to hang out in redneck bars, but I've also
heard them in this thread as reasons why we should be extra-zealous in
punishing those bigots.
I would defend you, Anmar, against a charge of bigotry. But it isn't a
black-and-white issue. Minority communities are scared of violence, and
they have the political clout in this generation to manifest a reaction
to that fear. (Whether this extra punishment deters anyone from
committing a bias-motivated crime is something that I'm skeptical of.)
In that, you have a lot in common with the parents who are afraid that
you're going to become a Scoutmaster and convert (or mollest) their sons
on camping trips.
I'd rather we work on having reconciliations between communities that
would reduce these fears of the unknown, most of which are unjustified.
But it seems like folks these days would rather build and rely upon
walls of both the emotional and prison variety.
-Matthew, wondering what would happen if we found a genetic
predisposition toward intolerance....
David V. Vrooman
> In Canada there is a defense called the 'Homosexual Panic'
> defense, where the defendant claims that the victim made a pass
> and the resulting murder was due to the frame of mind that caused.
> It's ludicrous to my mind: anything with so little self control
> that a pass makes them commit murder isn't a person and should be
> contained humanely until a use for their organs comes up.
There have been two murder cases in Upstate NY this year
that this figured in. In one, a 20yo man shot and killed a cabbie.
He claimed the cabbie made an advance when he didn't have the fare.
Since he had told the dispatcher he would be bringing a shotgun,
shot the cabbie, rolled him down an incline, and shot him again,
there didn't seem too much doubt that it was premeditated. Once
he shot the cabbie he obviously decided "dead men tell no tales".
BTW, the homophobe defense didn't work, even in a blue-collar
rural type area. Jury said guilty, Judge said 20 to life, perp's gf
and mother of child said I will wait for him, blah blah blah.
Quite a senseless tragedy all around IMO.
In the other case a man murdered his drinking buddy,
apparently to get a few dollars. He claimed the man came out of
the bathroom nude and made an advance. IIRC, this one didn't work
either. I think the homophobe defense was used because in either
case there was no doubt that the accused did it, and it was
apparent that it was committed with little regard for human life,
if the perpetrator was not acting under some severe mental stress.
>
> Interesting defense if women used it. "A 45 yr old bald man
> made a pass at me and as any normal person would, I panicked and
> beat him to death with my shoe."
The "Jeffries defense?"
=======David V. Vrooman=============Skunk Hollow, NY=================
"...the lyrics were so pedestrian, they should have come with
arch supports." -John Rodat, reviewing Eagle-Eye Cherry 09-23-98
Mark Haas
> In article <705o4e$r76$1...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu> wrote:
> >pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings) wrote:
> >>Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu>, in article <705c9t$mqt$1...@ux2.isu.edu>,
> dixit:
> >>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
> >>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
> >>> equally?
> >>
> >>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
> >>inequities and working to correct them?
> >
> > I'm sorry if you all feel insulted because I prefer to treat people
> > as individuals and not representatives of their groups as a whole.
>
> No reason to apologize - I don't think anyone is insulted (yet) over
> anything in this thread and it certainly wouldn't be because you "prefer
> to treat people as individuals and not representatives of their groups
> as a whole".
>
> "Hate" can very well be the *sole* motive of a crime such as murder and
> as such, I see no reason why it shouldn't be weighted just as other
> motivating factors are. 'Tis serious stuff when someone kills another
> simply because they don't like 'em or decide that they're not equals.
<IMHO>
The act of killing someone already shows that the individual doing the
killing has dehumanized zir victim. If they saw the other as a person
and not an object to be dealt with, then it would become impossible
to kill. It would be like killing a part of yourself. Soldiers,
police, both tend to dehumanize their victims ("enemy", "scum") when
they kill other than out of immediate need. (/IMHO).
>
> Crys
>
> -
> Political correctness assumes we're morons who, if allowed to do
> anything naughty, will immediately turn into unmanageable terrors.
> -Bill Maher
-- Mark (sometimes known as Virgil)
dun...@hotmail.com
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> In article <7060ai$84s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> >
[big snip of my arguments about the relevance of the legal precedence of
the implementation of the death penalty laws]
> >The judgments under this law will reflect -- _not_ change -- the prejudices
> >and bigotries of the majority culture.
>
> I'm missing the logical leap it took to make this connection. Seriously.
>
Ok. How about just that statement on its own. Please tell me how you expect
these laws to effect change for the better.
> >> Violence should *never* be used to oppress others. Sadly, it all too
> >> often is.
>
> >The government uses violence to oppress every day. Do you think that's an
> >unequivocally bad thing?
>
> If you post an almost completely irrelevant point, should I think it's
> unequivocally a bad thing? Or because the government does it, it
> makes it ok? Is that what you're saying?
>
I'm asking you to think your statement through a little more carefully. The
police use violence to oppress every day. I don't see how you can possibly
think this is always a "sad" thing, that this should "never" happen.
> I'm really trying here, I read your post carefully several times and I simply
> was unable to follow your reasoning. Arguably, it's a reflection on my
> intelligence and ability to form coherent thought, I won't deny the
> probability.
>
I don't think you're unintelligent. The picture your posts conjure about your
mind is that of a rusted-shut steel trap with a gay pride flag painted on the
outside.
IMHO.
> I'm very willing to listen to arguments on either side, but when I
> went through this subject in a law class a couple of years ago, the
> professor made some very persuasive arguments for them, and I've not
> heard anything since that effectively counters them. I've heard a lot
> of emotional appeal on both sides, I've heard a lot of poorly thought
> out arguments, or arguments that demonstrated to me that the person
> arguing has a very poor understanding of the actual legislation.
... and one completely irrelevant argument, if I understand your response to
me correctly. I'd love a discussion with your law professor about these
laws. I think I could take zir.
That said, I'll try to restate my position a little more succinctly: you
can't legislate morality. There are copious legal precedents which
demonstrate that laws which require value judgments by judges and juries will
reflect, not change, the majority culture values and prejudices and
bigotries.
--
Kristen
bikerbabe in black leather
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I'll never forget the time that ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe
>in black leather) said:
>
>I hear it too. "They don't deserve to share the fruits of society with
>decent folks like us. We have the power to punish them for what they
>do, and we are within our right to do so. If they didn't want to be
>punished by us, they shouldn't act the way they do (which is their
>choice, after all). Buncha sickoes, they are." I assume that you hear
>words like these if you were to hang out in redneck bars, but I've also
>heard them in this thread as reasons why we should be extra-zealous in
>punishing those bigots.
Well, none of them have been reasons I've stated. FWIW here, I'm not
talking about protecting any particular minority, those same hate laws
could be, and have been, used against people who have committed
violence against white people, against Christians. And I think that's
a good thing as well, as I've said before, I think violence against a
group, motivated by hatred of that group, is a lot worse of a motive.
As several have pointed out, we already consider motive in considering
sentencing severity, I don't have a problem with codifying another
form of motive. And particularly, I'm not going to have much sympathy
for people who commit violent crimes against other people. There are
extenuating circumstances in which I support leniency, but hatred
isn't one of them.
Others have talked about how we're going to start having to read
people's minds to tell if the violence was motivated by hatred, and I
think that's a ridiculous argument. There are often very clear signs,
either by statements made, types of vandalism done, or other ways in
which it is clear that hatred is a part of the crime. If there isn't
clear evidence, well, that's the whole point about having to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt in the US.
>
>I'd rather we work on having reconciliations between communities that
>would reduce these fears of the unknown, most of which are unjustified.
And I agree that it's something that should be done as well, which is
what my actions speak.
>-Matthew, wondering what would happen if we found a genetic
>predisposition toward intolerance....
Hey, as I've said in alt.polyamory, I don't think uniform unilateral
tolerance is necessarily a good thing...
Ogre
both quoted bits, actually:
>[death penalty laws and hate crime laws]
>>
>> >The implementation of the death penalty in this country is
>> >overwhelmingly racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the
>> >death penalty if you are a black person who killed a white person than
>> >for any other combination of perp/victim.
{snip}
>It's a nationwide figure, and I think there's a key thing here that you mebbe
>missed. The stat is not that blacks are 8 times more likely to be on death
>row than whites. It's that blacks who commit capital crimes against whites
>are 8 times more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks who commit
>crimes against blacks, whites who commit crimes against whites, or whites who
>commit crimes against blacks.
I was sorta wondering, was there a reason you used the word "capital" in
your first category, but not the others? I would hope that a black man
who killed a white man was more likely to receive the death penalty than
a white man who, say, robbed a Hispanic at gunpoint but never pulled the
trigger.
But, if all the "crimes" you're talking about were "capital crimes", then
I'll agree something's not right.
Ogre, no clues how to fix it though
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Portrait of an Ogre: http://www.iglou.com/profile/view.cgi/ogre
bikerbabe in black leather
>In article <706j0k$9av$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
>> >The judgments under this law will reflect -- _not_ change -- the prejudices
>> >and bigotries of the majority culture.
>>
>> I'm missing the logical leap it took to make this connection. Seriously.
>>
>
>Ok. How about just that statement on its own. Please tell me how you expect
>these laws to effect change for the better.
Effect change? I don't in particular, except to help keep people with
a tendency towards violence away from society for longer periods of
time. See my response to Matthew regarding my thoughts on that.
>> If you post an almost completely irrelevant point, should I think it's
>> unequivocally a bad thing? Or because the government does it, it
>> makes it ok? Is that what you're saying?
>>
>
>I'm asking you to think your statement through a little more carefully. The
>police use violence to oppress every day. I don't see how you can possibly
>think this is always a "sad" thing, that this should "never" happen.
And I think you're mixing two seperate arguments here which may
have some overlap, but are essentially different.
>> I'm really trying here, I read your post carefully several times and I simply
>> was unable to follow your reasoning. Arguably, it's a reflection on my
>> intelligence and ability to form coherent thought, I won't deny the
>> probability.
>>
>
>I don't think you're unintelligent. The picture your posts conjure about your
>mind is that of a rusted-shut steel trap with a gay pride flag painted on the
>outside.
*chortle* now you want to talk about a prejudice!
That's because *you* are reading that into what I'm saying based on a
very limited subset of information you know about me. Quite frankly,
it's fairly condescending of you, and it makes it difficult to take
you seriously.
If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
next? My supposed ethnic background?
gw...@my-dejanews.com
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
> In article <70578r$4u2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <gw...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >Society claims the right to lock this person up, because he
> >broke the rules. But to say that the rules apply to him is
> >in itself an implicit claim that he remains a member of
> >society.
>
> Why? Society protects itself; in fact, it tends to treat non-members
> more harshly than members. (A dog will be killed for two
> non-injurious bites.)
Yes, I knew I was going to have to think more about the idea
of membership. One obvious argument is that the member/non-
member distinction is only meaningfully applicable to humans,
and that when it is so applied, courts regard the actions of
non-members as nothing to do with them. (You can't, for
example, try a Saudi sheikh in an American court on bigamy
charges.)
But I think it's better to come at the question from the
opposite direction. As I said, this is my attempt to
discover what I think, and what consequences that has, and
not at all aimed at persuading anyone to agree with me.
As far as I can see, my starting point is a requirement for
reciprocity: specifically, I refuse to accept the concept
of a one-sided obligation. That's just what my gut tells
me is right; I don't have any arguments to support it. I'll
take it as an axiom and see where it gets me.
Now society (in the form of the state) wants to impose some
obligations on me; my position is that these cannot possibly
be legitimate unless society takes on some reciprocal
obligations of its own. Likewise, the moral authority
society claims to enforce my obligations to it evaporates
the moment it fails to observe its obligations to me. So
if society wants to put me into prison, the least it has
to do is follow its own rules about how to treat me while
I'm inside.
Intriguingly, this leaves me where Jo (rhetorically?)
started off, in demanding that if various cruelties are to
be part of the punishment, then that must be written into
the law, but it doesn't commit me to believing that making
such cruelties part of a punishment is intrinsically wrong.
I clearly need to explore this further. I also see a big
problem looming in the fact that an individual's
relationship with society is ultimately not a matter of
consent. (After all, it's all very well saying that if I
want to join the game, I have to play by the rules, but
what happens when society is the only game in town, and
participation is compulsory?)
Looks like I have a busy weekend ahead.
> > If he's genuinely not a member of society, I don't
> >see how society has any business trying to control him;
>
> Self-defense.
I'm very cautious about this. I'm willing to accept that
the actions of one individual towards another can be
construed as an attack on society as a whole, and that
society therefore has a right to defend itself. But to
me, self defence means you have the right to use minimum
sufficient force to deal with the attack as it is
happening. What is being defended against here? What
he did in the past? That's retaliation. What he might
do in the future? That's a pre-emptive strike. I might
be persuaded that either one is justified, but I'm not
convinced that either one is unequivocally defence.
gwyddwr
James Nicoll
>In article <707n41$mrd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dun...@hotmail.com> wrote
>both quoted bits, actually:
>
>>[death penalty laws and hate crime laws]
>>>
>>> >The implementation of the death penalty in this country is
>>> >overwhelmingly racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the
>>> >death penalty if you are a black person who killed a white person than
>>> >for any other combination of perp/victim.
>
>{snip}
>
>>It's a nationwide figure, and I think there's a key thing here that you mebbe
>>missed. The stat is not that blacks are 8 times more likely to be on death
>>row than whites. It's that blacks who commit capital crimes against whites
>>are 8 times more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks who commit
>>crimes against blacks, whites who commit crimes against whites, or whites who
>>commit crimes against blacks.
>
>I was sorta wondering, was there a reason you used the word "capital" in
>your first category, but not the others? I would hope that a black man
>who killed a white man was more likely to receive the death penalty than
>a white man who, say, robbed a Hispanic at gunpoint but never pulled the
>trigger.
>
>But, if all the "crimes" you're talking about were "capital crimes", then
>I'll agree something's not right.
The stat I heard was that if you eliminate the case
where the black man was a cop, there has never been a white man
sentenced to death for killing a black man in the USA.
James Nicoll
--
"[...] it's been about 12 years now that I've been singing this dumb song. You
know, it's amazing that somebody could get away with singing a song this dumb
for that long. [...] what's more amazing than that is that somebody could make
a living singing a song this dumb for that many years. But, that's America."
Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller
>
>That said, I'll try to restate my position a little more succinctly: you
>can't legislate morality.
This is a pithy statement which happens to be completely untrue.
Our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM is based on and represents a series of moral
choices.
Matthew Daly
said:
>In article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>,
>Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>Our local NPR station had a story this morning on the legislative leader
>>who is keeping it from passing. Despite being a tough-on-crime kinda
>>guy, he doesn't see how someone who hates is going to be deterred from
>>manifesting his bigotry because of an extra jail sentence, especially
>>for a crime like the Wyoming case that is exactly why the death penalty
>>is back in vogue.
>
>I confess that I have been falling asleep before the 11 pm ATC rebroadcast
>here. Are the Wyoming morons up for the Big Sleep or life as Bubba's
>bitch?
To be honest, I don't even recall if they have suspects in custody. And
I'm only guessing that Wyoming has the death penalty, although I don't
think I'm going too far out on a limb with that.
>>(He also noted that NY judges have the latitude to
>>add additional jail time onto the maximum sentence if the judge feels
>>that extenuating circumstances exist, so the lack of formal hate crime
>>laws isn't a barrier.)
>
>Q: do y'all have judicial recall there?
We have judicial elections. (I know, we're backwards here. We have to
elect judges but can't elect our coroners.)
>In this case I'm thinking that NOTHING would have worked as a deterrent.
>Beating the living shit out of someone and leaving them out in a remote
>area in the cold is entirely chargeable in all jurisdictions in the US and
>the penalties get worse if the victim dies. Didn't stop these fucknuts.
I think you're absolutely right. But I can empathize with right-thinking
people who gnash their teeth and ask "What could _we_ have done to prevent
this?" But you can't prevent bias crimes any more than you can prevent
bank robberies, unless you count efforts to get people to work through
their prejudices like diversity training.
>IMO, if they were capable of *reasoning*, they wouldn't have
>done any of it in the first place and would have keyed the guy's car or
>something if they were still upset. (Not that I think that's an
>appropriate response to someone making a "pass" at you, mind.)
What's this part of the story? I can't think of where a couple of
assholes would be where someone would think to make a pass at them.
(Aside to Piglet: if this guy had been killed for making a pass at the
guy's girlfriend, the media wouldn't have picked up this story and people
would be wondering publicly how the guy could show such a lack of
judgement.)
>I hope the DA throws the book at them. And then they get whomped by a
>civil suit.
Do they bother with civil suits for people who don't have deep pockets?
>C(joining Eugenia in singing "National Brotherhood Week")LB
"I know that there are some people out there who do not love their fellow
human beings, and I _HATE_ people like that!"
-Matthew
---
Matthew Daly mwd...@pobox.com http://www.frontiernet.net/~mwdaly/
Though he is a person to whom things do not happen, perhaps they
may when he is on the other side. - E. Gorey
Matthew Daly
said:
>I was watching one of the Planet of the Apes movies, was it _Beneath the
>Planet of the Apes_, where there was a race of humans who had evolved
>telepathic powers. They imprison Charlton Heston and buds. When asked
>what they are going to do to the prisoners, the pale, underground people
>reply, "We are a civilized people; we don't harm our prisoners; we get our
>prisoners to do that for us." Or something like that. I thought, gee,
>that's what we do. The Pontius Pilate school of prison management.
Ooh, I've got it! We start by building a giant wall around Manhattan....
-Matthew, we could even invite the law-abiding citizens to leave before we
were finshed. I bet that they'd both really appreciate that.
dun...@hotmail.com
og...@iglou2.iglou.com (Ogre) wrote:
> In article <707n41$mrd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dun...@hotmail.com> wrote
> both quoted bits, actually:
>
> >[death penalty laws and hate crime laws]
> >>
> >> >The implementation of the death penalty in this country is
> >> >overwhelmingly racist. You are about 8 times more likely to get the
> >> >death penalty if you are a black person who killed a white person than
> >> >for any other combination of perp/victim.
>
> {snip}
>
> >It's a nationwide figure, and I think there's a key thing here that you mebbe
> >missed. The stat is not that blacks are 8 times more likely to be on death
> >row than whites. It's that blacks who commit capital crimes against whites
> >are 8 times more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks who commit
> >crimes against blacks, whites who commit crimes against whites, or whites who
> >commit crimes against blacks.
>
> I was sorta wondering, was there a reason you used the word "capital" in
> your first category, but not the others?
Trying (and failing) to remember if the stats I'm quoting relate only to
murders. I'll look it up when I get home.
> I would hope that a black man who killed a white man was more likely to
> receive the death penalty than a white man who, say, robbed a Hispanic at
> gunpoint but never pulled the trigger.
>
> But, if all the "crimes" you're talking about were "capital crimes", then
> I'll agree something's not right.
>
The stats I'm referring to are all about cases where the death penalty has
been imposed, so they are all capital crimes.
> Ogre, no clues how to fix it though
>
Education, education, education. And in the meantime eliminate the death
penalty.
--
Kristen
dun...@hotmail.com
jamm...@mindspring.com (Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller) wrote:
> In article <707q1c$reo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thus spake dun...@hotmail.com:
> >
> >That said, I'll try to restate my position a little more succinctly: you
> >can't legislate morality.
>
> This is a pithy statement which happens to be completely untrue.
>
> Our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM is based on and represents a series of moral
> choices.
>
*blush* I have much egg on my face.
I meant: You can't legislate changes in morality.
dun...@hotmail.com
ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
> In article <707q1c$reo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <dun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <706j0k$9av$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) wrote:
>
> >> >The judgments under this law will reflect -- _not_ change -- the
> >> >prejudices and bigotries of the majority culture.
> >>
> >> I'm missing the logical leap it took to make this connection. Seriously.
> >>
> >
> >Ok. How about just that statement on its own. Please tell me how you expect
> >these laws to effect change for the better.
>
> Effect change? I don't in particular, except to help keep people with
> a tendency towards violence away from society for longer periods of
> time. See my response to Matthew regarding my thoughts on that.
>
I read it before I started writing this. But you didn't answer the question I
would have asked in response here, namely: How do you think the hate crime
legislation identifies people with "a tendency towards violence"
> >> If you post an almost completely irrelevant point, should I think it's
> >> unequivocally a bad thing? Or because the government does it, it
> >> makes it ok? Is that what you're saying?
> >>
> >
> >I'm asking you to think your statement through a little more carefully. The
> >police use violence to oppress every day. I don't see how you can possibly
> >think this is always a "sad" thing, that this should "never" happen.
>
> And I think you're mixing two seperate arguments here which may
> have some overlap, but are essentially different.
>
I don't think they're essentially different. And you didn't answer the
question.
> >> I'm really trying here, I read your post carefully several times and I
> >> simply was unable to follow your reasoning. Arguably, it's a reflection on
> >> my intelligence and ability to form coherent thought, I won't deny the
> >> probability.
> >>
> >
> >I don't think you're unintelligent. The picture your posts conjure about
> >your mind is that of a rusted-shut steel trap with a gay pride flag painted
> >on the outside.
>
> *chortle* now you want to talk about a prejudice!
>
I didn't prejudge you.
> That's because *you* are reading that into what I'm saying based on a
> very limited subset of information you know about me.
My statement does take into consideration the posts I've read from you in the
past.
> Quite frankly, it's fairly condescending of you, and it makes it difficult to
> take you seriously.
>
... because you took my post so seriously before I made that comment. Your
version of cause and effect is convenient.
> If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
> next? My supposed ethnic background?
>
I don't think your being queer has a friggin' thing to do with your
motivation. I think you use the political capital you gain by calling
yourself "queer" to justify and protect your opinions. Reminds me of
politicians wrapping themselves up in their war records.
Ted Gavin
>In article <36277646...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>tedg...@worldnet.att.net (Ted Gavin) wrote:
>
>>On 15 Oct 1998 10:00:37 -0400, "Fitzjon" <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>tedg...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>On 15 Oct 1998 00:48:17 -0400,
>
>>Gives credit to songbird for the birth of Joe Collar and the Uppity
>>Icks. Thanks songbird...*chirp!*
>>
[rampant use of ascii chainsaw...]
>>>Yes, with this modification: Joe Collar goes to jail for a longer
>>>period of time than he would for the same crime absent the political
>>>motivation. And remember songbird's scenario - Joe gets the hate
>>>crime treatment because of his professed loathing of all things Ick,
>>>though he was allegedly unaware of his victim's heritage. It becomes
>>>a First Amendment problem because marrying political ideas to criminal
>>>acts becomes easier to do with practice and precedent. The next step
>>>might be banning neo-fascist rallies because of the potential for
>>>concomitant criminal behavior.
>>>
>>Personally, I don't see *that* happening, and would be rather distraught
>>if it did. The Court has already ruled on free speech, even when
>>offensive to the "broad spectrum of the population". They have ruled it
>>acceptable. In ways that are astonishing.
>>
>I would be more than distraught if it did, and don't believe for a moment
>that It Can't Happen Here. In my view, if people wait until their own ideas
>are threatened before taking a stand against speech control, then they've
>already lost.
>
Well, I tried to avoid a statement like this, since all too often it is
used as a crutch, but...
My ethnic and cultural background has ingrained in my racial memory the
simple fact that a lack of vigilance on the part of those who work
against the "It Can't Happen Here" mentality, will guarantee that It
Will Happen Here.
The only evidence that I have to prove this, is that is has happened
that way since humankind has chosen to exist in civilizations. It is
the societal equivalent of the police officer character in a movie who
in the first ten minutes, announces;
a. How he can't wait to retire in five days
b. Loves his fiancee, and can't wait for the wedding
c. Is eagerly anticipating the arrival of his first child
Nuffin but bad can happen there.
>Jeff <--Think I'm gonna like this group
Ted. Jeff, welcome to the froup :-) (now get yer ass to a Boink)
Ted Gavin http://home.att.net/~tedgavin
-----------------------------------------------------
24% of all people who use Herbal Remedies do so because
Aspirin is a classic example of misogynistic Western
exploitative capitalist Caucasian phallocentrism.
-The Onion, 98.09.30 (www.theonion.com)
Ted Gavin
>I'll never forget the time that "Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net>
>said:
>
>>In article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>,
>>Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Our local NPR station had a story this morning on the legislative leader
>>>who is keeping it from passing. Despite being a tough-on-crime kinda
>>>guy, he doesn't see how someone who hates is going to be deterred from
>>>manifesting his bigotry because of an extra jail sentence, especially
>>>for a crime like the Wyoming case that is exactly why the death penalty
>>>is back in vogue.
>>
>>I confess that I have been falling asleep before the 11 pm ATC rebroadcast
>>here. Are the Wyoming morons up for the Big Sleep or life as Bubba's
>>bitch?
>
>To be honest, I don't even recall if they have suspects in custody. And
>I'm only guessing that Wyoming has the death penalty, although I don't
>think I'm going too far out on a limb with that.
>
>>>(He also noted that NY judges have the latitude to
>>>add additional jail time onto the maximum sentence if the judge feels
>>>that extenuating circumstances exist, so the lack of formal hate crime
>>>laws isn't a barrier.)
>>
>>Q: do y'all have judicial recall there?
>
>We have judicial elections. (I know, we're backwards here. We have to
>elect judges but can't elect our coroners.)
>
Would you _want_ to elect your coroners? Not being critical, just
wondering what the actual public interest is in that function in a
community to size of NYC, really. In Philly, I don't think that is an
elected position.
>>In this case I'm thinking that NOTHING would have worked as a deterrent.
>>Beating the living shit out of someone and leaving them out in a remote
>>area in the cold is entirely chargeable in all jurisdictions in the US and
>>the penalties get worse if the victim dies. Didn't stop these fucknuts.
>
>I think you're absolutely right. But I can empathize with right-thinking
>people who gnash their teeth and ask "What could _we_ have done to prevent
>this?" But you can't prevent bias crimes any more than you can prevent
>bank robberies, unless you count efforts to get people to work through
>their prejudices like diversity training.
>
>>IMO, if they were capable of *reasoning*, they wouldn't have
>>done any of it in the first place and would have keyed the guy's car or
>>something if they were still upset. (Not that I think that's an
>>appropriate response to someone making a "pass" at you, mind.)
>
>What's this part of the story? I can't think of where a couple of
>assholes would be where someone would think to make a pass at them.
>(Aside to Piglet: if this guy had been killed for making a pass at the
>guy's girlfriend, the media wouldn't have picked up this story and people
>would be wondering publicly how the guy could show such a lack of
>judgement.)
>
>>I hope the DA throws the book at them. And then they get whomped by a
>>civil suit.
>
>Do they bother with civil suits for people who don't have deep pockets?
>
Homeowners insurance usually covers liability in those cases. It has in
rape and violation of privacy suits, anyway.
>>C(joining Eugenia in singing "National Brotherhood Week")LB
>
>"I know that there are some people out there who do not love their fellow
>human beings, and I _HATE_ people like that!"
>
"And to illustrate just how well the idea works, this year, on the first
day of the week, Malcolm X was killed."
Ted, Sheriff Clark and Lena Horne????
Alan Miller
> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
> it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
> that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
> victims?
I look at it as an additional penalty for an attack not on a person but
on a group or society as a whole. Probably the canonical example would
be burning black churches in the south - if I were to go through burning
churches just for the heck of it, it would be punishable as arson. If I
go through burning every black church I can find with the intent of
making it quite clear that this is a hostile area, it's arson with a hate
crime penalty tacked on. The hate crime statutes are there to add a
penalty for the benefit of the group. (That's poorly phrased, it's not
really for anyone's "benefit," but I don't see a better way to phrase it
right now.)
It's interesting to consider that hate crimes and sexual harassment (of
the "creating a hostile workplace" a la Mitusbishi sort) are actually
very closely related.
> i'm gagging. there's no way these laws are just, workable, or
> even useful to the ends they wish to persue. i sure hope the
> courts will throw them out as unconstitutional.
I don't expect them to disappear, but they are quite difficult to prove -
it requires establishing motivation, and is apparently very difficult to
prove unless the perpetrator communicates in some way. Even then, it's
not a cinch. I do feel that they should in fact be extremely difficult
to prosecute, and if they ever become easier or commonplace I'll be very
frightened about what it says about our society.
> i can see enough scenarios that make them problematic. lessee,
> suppose joe b. collar decides to have a few brewskis with the
> neighbor. he happens also to be racist (i can hear the bricks
> stacking on the scales already :) and he mentions to his buddy how
> he hates (whatever group seems to be threatened at the moment) lets
> call them "icks", so then he gets a little tanked, goes out and
> runs into and "ick", but here's the catch, he doesn't know it, and
> proceeds to commit some crime against the person.
That's why it's difficult to prosecute without some form of communication
during the commission of the crime.
ajm
--
Alan Miller \\ ajm at pobox.com \\ http://www.pobox.com/~ajm
Alan Miller
> > group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
> > the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
>
> how is this different than any other violent crime? in the case
> of robbery isn't it saying to everyone "stay home there are bad people
> out here ready to take your money (or your life). *growl*" and it'd
> be fairly easy to come up with plenty of other examples.
No, it's saying "Stay home black/gay/jewish/republican man, there are bad
people out here ready to beat you up because of who you are." Going back
to the black/southern thing (since it's the most widespread example in
the U.S.) do you think that a group of people beating up black men is
going to scare the white folks in the neighborhood much? They're safe.
Janet Kegg
>I'll never forget the time that "Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net>
>said:
>
>>In article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>,
>>Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Our local NPR station had a story this morning on the legislative leader
>>>who is keeping it from passing. Despite being a tough-on-crime kinda
>>>guy, he doesn't see how someone who hates is going to be deterred from
>>>manifesting his bigotry because of an extra jail sentence, especially
>>>for a crime like the Wyoming case that is exactly why the death penalty
>>>is back in vogue.
>>
>>I confess that I have been falling asleep before the 11 pm ATC rebroadcast
>>here. Are the Wyoming morons up for the Big Sleep or life as Bubba's
>>bitch?
>
>To be honest, I don't even recall if they have suspects in custody. And
>I'm only guessing that Wyoming has the death penalty, although I don't
>think I'm going too far out on a limb with that.
Three suspects are in custody, 2 men and a women, for the brutal murder of
a gay university student. And, yes, Wyoming has the death penalty.
And it was most probably a hate crime. I'm outraged by hate crimes but
that doesn't mean that I'm convinced that hate crime _laws_ are going to
accomplish much except to acknowledge that people in certain groups are the
targets of hate crimes and to affirm that this is a very bad thing. I can
understand the desire for such affirmation but it's not a solution to the
problem. We should be clear on that.
Most states have hate crime laws. Such laws typically increase the penalty
for the crime, perhaps add 5 years to a sentence. Like laws that increase
the penalty for a crime when a gun is involved. Many of these state laws
and the current federal hate crime statutes do not specify gays among the
groups receiving shelter under the laws' provisions. That inequality of
treatment, with the Wyoming murder providing a focus, is what's fueling the
current renewed call for more comprehensive federal hate crime legislation.
It may not be particularly wise Law, but as long as you're at it, don't
exclude my group. Or that group over there. Perhaps we should just include
everybody... Or, better yet, go ahead and enforce all laws firmly and
fairly and save the judges and jurors a lot of extra trouble.
A commentator on NPR suggested a different name for hate crimes: crimes of
ignorance. Maybe he's even more of an idealist than I but looking at it
from that angle does give a bit more hope. Ignorance is something that can
be tackled; reduce it significantly and the hatred of the Other won't have
fertile ground to grow in.
-- Janet
theurgy
>On 15 Oct 1998 01:20:25 -0400, trx...@xmission.com (theurgy) wrote:
>>True story out of todays Salt Lake Trombone: a local 21-year old man is
>>charged with a hate crime for yelling racial insults at a passenger in a
>>car next to his. No contact, only something like "I'll string you up on a
>>tree you nigger bitch!" (language inferred from article) According to the
>>article the woman claimed that the insult was unprovoked. The man faces a
>>potential sentence of 5 years in prison.
>>
>>Presumably he would be not so charged if his skin were black.
>I guess self-hatred doesn't count as a hate crime.
>ObTryingToHard: This is an example of the kind of differentiation
>that causes me to question hate crime legislation. Either a threat of
>violence is, *by itself,* a crime, and therefore the reason or
>particular insults used are irrelevant, or this is protected speech in
>my opinion. Likewise, if somebody spray-painted swastikas and the
>words "die Jew" on my congregation's new synagogue, it's just graffiti
>(which is already illegal). I grant you I'd be more afraid than if
>they painted tags or obscene pictures, but I don't think there should
>be any different remedy under the law.
My feelings exactly. More and more we attach conditions and riders to our
criminal laws: rob a bank, get one sentence, do it with a gun, get a worse
sentence, yell racial epithets while doing it, get an even stiffer
sentence. Too many of our laws penalize actions that are not of themselves
harmful, with the rationale of trying to suppress certain beliefs and
behaviors.
I don't buy it. Keep the laws simple, and the penalties directly tied to
the criminal act. Everything else is hypocrisy and attempts to legislate
morality.
Felicitations,
M.
Ray Henry
: In article <707q1c$reo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thus spake dun...@hotmail.com:
:>
:>That said, I'll try to restate my position a little more succinctly: you
:>can't legislate morality.
: This is a pithy statement which happens to be completely untrue.
: Our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM is based on and represents a series of moral
: choices.
To a certain extent, I'd say that reinforces the idea that you can't
legislate morality. (Only partly joking, here.) 'Course, I've always
been rather cynical about our current legal system. Wish I had ideas on
how to fix it.
Antryg - I don't propose a return to frontier justice, but it had it's
advantages...if you didn't piss off the wrong person.
Matthew Daly
said:
>On 16 Oct 1998 15:59:08 -0400, mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>
>>I'll never forget the time that "Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net>
>>said:
>>
>>>Q: do y'all have judicial recall there?
>>
>>We have judicial elections. (I know, we're backwards here. We have to
>>elect judges but can't elect our coroners.)
>>
>Would you _want_ to elect your coroners? Not being critical, just
>wondering what the actual public interest is in that function in a
>community to size of NYC, really. In Philly, I don't think that is an
>elected position.
Ahm jest yankin on Mizz Charlotte's chain. In her big goofy state out on
the Other Ocean, she's probably up to her ears in promotional literature
from folks who are clamoring to be the next coroner of Alameda County.
Personally, I never got any joy out of that particular exercise in the
democratic process -- I'd much rather see the county commissioner appoint
someone after careful consideration with people who can actually judge a
coroner's excellence like the law enforcement and medical communities.
Then again, I always thought that every California legislator's pay should
go down by $5,000 every time they put a proposition on the ballot -- I
thought I was paying them to do that stuff so I could worry about my own
life....
-Matthew
Charlotte L. Blackmer
In article <362a6cc0....@news.frontiernet.net>,
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I'll never forget the time that tedg...@worldnet.att.net (Ted Gavin)
>said:
>
>>On 16 Oct 1998 15:59:08 -0400, mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>>
>>>I'll never forget the time that "Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net>
>>>said:
>>>
>>>>Q: do y'all have judicial recall there?
>>>
>>>We have judicial elections. (I know, we're backwards here. We have to
>>>elect judges but can't elect our coroners.)
>>>
>>Would you _want_ to elect your coroners? Not being critical, just
>>wondering what the actual public interest is in that function in a
>>community to size of NYC, really. In Philly, I don't think that is an
>>elected position.
>
>Ahm jest yankin on Mizz Charlotte's chain. In her big goofy state out on
>the Other Ocean, she's probably up to her ears in promotional literature
>from folks who are clamoring to be the next coroner of Alameda County.
Oh, I'm usually up to my ears in promo literature for elections, being one
of those Likely Voters and all (the voter guide that the Secretary of
State sends out is enough to give the mailman a hernia, for starters) but
I have to confess that there is usually enough shouting further up the
ticket that I confess I couldn't tell you whether or not we DO elect our
coroner in this county.
Not usually a big controversy position if so. (Unlike some of the
judicial elections I remember.)
>Personally, I never got any joy out of that particular exercise in the
>democratic process -- I'd much rather see the county commissioner appoint
>someone after careful consideration with people who can actually judge a
>coroner's excellence like the law enforcement and medical communities.
>Then again, I always thought that every California legislator's pay should
>go down by $5,000 every time they put a proposition on the ballot -- I
>thought I was paying them to do that stuff so I could worry about my own
>life....
Have you been reading my posts on this very idea on ss classic,
ba.singles, and TNTDNSINOSS(M)? I'd include the Gov in this because our
present one is the reason Prop 215 (medical marrywanna) had to go on the
ballot. (The Leg was on the ball for that one.)
I'm thinking of trying to get together a ballot initiative for similar, or
to get us Frequent Voters on CalPERS as an alternative.
If I can't DOCK the leg for doing their jobs for them, I want to get some
of their perks.
C(voting gives me the right to bitch at them till the next time)LB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
Matthew Daly
said:
>[...] but
>I have to confess that there is usually enough shouting further up the
>ticket that I confess I couldn't tell you whether or not we DO elect our
>coroner in this county.
I only lived in Contra Costa County, but I'm sure we elected them there.
>Have you been reading my posts on this very idea on ss classic,
>ba.singles, and TNTDNSINOSS(M)?
Nope, I'll have to do a Dejanews User Profile on you to track down your
position.
>I'd include the Gov in this because our
>present one is the reason Prop 215 (medical marrywanna) had to go on the
>ballot. (The Leg was on the ball for that one.)
I think that if the leg can't override a governor's veto, then they're SOL
until they get a new governor in place. That's the constitution. But
when legislators look at their districts and know that they'll piss off
half their constituents no matter which way they vote and think "well,
we'll just put it in the people's hands to keep from making a decision!"
then they're not living up to their job duties.
>I'm thinking of trying to get together a ballot initiative for similar, or
>to get us Frequent Voters on CalPERS as an alternative.
While you're writing it, you should throw in a provision that a resolution
has to be approved by the CA Supremes as constitutionally sound before it
is voted on. If I had a nickel for every law that was passed on November
2 and had an injunction placed on it on November 3, I'd be a rich man.
>If I can't DOCK the leg for doing their jobs for them, I want to get some
>of their perks.
I'm sure the special interests are sending all kinds of money your way.
You receive it in the form of manipulative TV commericals, unfortunately.
Perhaps if you bought stock in a TV station you'd be happier.
>C(voting gives me the right to bitch at them till the next time)LB
If only everyone felt that way. I'm pretty sure that the bitching rate is
higher than the voting rate.
Kris Hasson
>songbird (s...@preferred.com) scribed for us...
>> aside from the fact that justice should be blind does
>> it bother anyone else that there are laws being considered
>> that will make penalties harsher for criminals who hate their
>> victims?
>
>I look at it as an additional penalty for an attack not on a person but
>on a group or society as a whole.
But I thought that was the whole idea of criminal law. Any attack on
a member of society is an attack on *all* of society, otherwise why
don't we still just leave it to the dead guy's family to avenge?
Kris
--
has...@teleport.com
"She's snippy." -- An anonymous opinion of me. Oh, the embarrassment.
Lynn Dobbs
Matthew Daly wrote in message <36264167...@news.kodak.com>...
>I'll never forget the time that pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings)
>said:
>
>>mwd...@pobox.com, in article <3624a3f8...@news.kodak.com>, dixit:
>>>I'll never forget the time that s...@preferred.com (songbird) said:
>>>> guess it shows how much i've paid attention these past few
>>>>years since i first hear rumors of such laws. in the news i
>>>>heard today that many states have already passed these laws
>>>>with only 8 left to do so (if i heard it right -- i was out
>>>>on the other branch when this factiod flew by).
>>
>>>If it's true, then NY is one of the ones that are left. <grump> Of
>>>course, sooner or later Congress is going to pass a law saying that any
>>>state that doesn't have hate crime legislation will lose their highway
>>>funding, so we'll catch up then. </grump>
>>
>>Grump?
>
>Uh-huh.
>
>>Hate crimes stand as a warning to other members of the same hated
>>group --- stay in line, or you'll be next. Keep quiet, keep out of
>>the way, don't stick your nose out. Stay in your own neighborhood.
>
>warnings to all rich people. What's your point? That you "understand"
>why a poor man would hurt a rich man more than why a homophobe would
>hurt a homosexual?
Almost holds up... Most crimes for financial profit are not carried out
against the rich. Check out which neighborhoods in any given city have the
most breakins.
Bias Crimes (hate crimes) aren't about hate as a secondary motive. It is
the primary motive -- sometimes the only motive. I am with Sheba, though.
I don't think specific groups should be listed. An assault committed with
the intent to intimidate should be a separate category of crime. Something
like sexual assault is a different crime than assault.
>>Given how long those crimes have been downplayed --- oh, it's just
>>some gay guy who got killed; must have been asking for it; ew, and he
>>was making a pass at the guy who bashed him, well, there you go, he
>>deserved it, no big deal
>
>Spare me. No crimes are played up as much as the victims would like.
>When I was beaten and robbed, it was because I clearly looked as if I
>had money.
This is true for most individual victims, I suppose. But that isn't the
case with bias crimes for at least part of their history. The KKK was a
well liked organization for part of its history. It existed (and still
exists) primarily to intimidate whole groups of people -- most notably
people of color and Jews.
Bias crimes have power because they are socially sanctioned at some level
and at some time. They have their roots in vigilantism.
>Overprosecuting crimes committed against neglected minorities will not
>make up for the fact that those same crimes used to be underprosecuted.
I don't think stiffer penalties will fix bias crime problems. Most 16-20
year olds (the ones who do most of the gay bashing in the US) don't think
about consequences at all. What will work, though, is a shift in the
conscienceness the general society.
Hate doesn't do well in the light of day. Rather than waiting for the
criminal justice system to operate, I think we would be better served with
community-based, non-violent, educational "antiterrorism" groups.
>And maybe I've been reading different media from you, but I haven't
>heard anyone say that the Wyoming case is "just some gay guy", and the
>car-dragging death a few months back wasn't "just some n*****". I'm
>glad that those thoughts aren't in evidence, but that's because of a
>diverse media, not because of dumb laws.
Both of these crimes have something in common. Both wouldn't have made
national news at all a few years ago. The Wyoming case might have made news
in the early sixties if it were established that Mathew was gay. But his
gayness would have been the news. I would be been another "homosexual
murder." Look what the press did with Cunnanan (sp?).
Increasing media attention is what makes the brutal murder of one black man
or one gay youngster news. But I am not so sure we couldn't have gotten that
much media attention without the national debates on hate crime laws.
>Do we still live in a country were we can freely say "I hate Icks"?
Yes, You can freely say you hate anyone. You just can't incite to riot,
induce to commit a crime or assault someone because you hate them. The Rev.
Phelps is a good case. He gets to say it he (and God) hates fags all the
time. That isn't a crime. When he interferes with the lives of others, he
violates the values that create freedom in society. Sometimes it is a
crime, sometimes it is a civil justice matter.
>If I commit a crime against an Ick, and the point of whether I've ever
>identified myself as an Ickphobe through my speech or my association is
>an issue, then we don't, and that supression of thought is as chilling
>as the self-censorship you would have had to perform yourself 30 years
>ago. Remember "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"?
>It applies to the KKK as much as to the NAACP.
You don't see the main point, I think. It isn't a hate crime for you to
beat one up because you hate icks. It is a crime of assault. It isn't a
crime to announce that you hate icks. However, announcing the inferiority
of icks publically then brutally assaulting one or more icks is different.
It isn't about what you think or do but about the message contained in what
you do. It isn't a hate crime to beat an ick because you hate icks. You
have to make it public that you are beating an ick _because_ you hate icks
_and_ that icks deserve it.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was completely correct. But ask one hundred people
if X is an injustice are you aren't likely to get a consensus!
Peace and Pleasure,
Lynn
Partners for Peace, Jan Hansen & Lynn Dobbs, www.access1.net/partners
An affiliation created to teach tolerance and celebrate diversity
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Lynn Dobbs
Eugenia wrote in message <705o4e$r76$1...@ux2.isu.edu>...
>>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
>>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
>>> equally?
>>
>>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
>>inequities and working to correct them?
>
> I'm sorry if you all feel insulted because I prefer to treat people
> as individuals and not representatives of their groups as a whole.
I am glad you treat people as individuals. But individual what? Do you
assume everyone is just like you? Do you not take their personal
history/story into account?
I don't think any one person can represent a group, but I don't separate a
person from their identities and relate to them as if their image of
themselves doesn't matter.
Hate crimes are less about motive than they are about the publicly announced
motive. It isn't "hate" that is the crime, it is the intention to intimidate
a group of people through violence.
ElissaAnn
>I'll never forget the time that ast...@nyx.nyx.net (Annette M. Stroud)
>said:
>
>>I was watching one of the Planet of the Apes movies, was it _Beneath the
>>Planet of the Apes_, where there was a race of humans who had evolved
>>telepathic powers. They imprison Charlton Heston and buds. When asked
>>what they are going to do to the prisoners, the pale, underground people
>>reply, "We are a civilized people; we don't harm our prisoners; we get our
>>prisoners to do that for us." Or something like that. I thought, gee,
>>that's what we do. The Pontius Pilate school of prison management.
>
>Ooh, I've got it! We start by building a giant wall around Manhattan....
>
>-Matthew, we could even invite the law-abiding citizens to leave before we
>were finshed. I bet that they'd both really appreciate that.
??? Are you talking about the city where people stand on line for *everything*
without getting into fights?
Come visit my fair city some time. We may have an in-your-face attitude, but
we're the friendliest people in the world, and we're amazingly civilized.
Elissa
--
THE SALOMONE TRIO
Medieval and Renaissance vocal music
http://members.aol.com/salomone3
Robert Blackshaw
>
> Eugenia wrote in message <705o4e$r76$1...@ux2.isu.edu>...
> >pig...@panix.com (Empress of Blandings) wrote:
> >>Eugenia <horn...@isu.edu>, in article <705c9t$mqt$1...@ux2.isu.edu>, dixit:
> >>> The court system already includes "motive" when assessing the
> >>> penalty. Do you guys REALLY have a problem with treating people
> >>> equally?
> >>
> >>Do you REALLY have a problem with recognizing existing major societal
> >>inequities and working to correct them?
> >
> > I'm sorry if you all feel insulted because I prefer to treat people
> > as individuals and not representatives of their groups as a whole.
>
> I am glad you treat people as individuals. But individual what? Do you
> assume everyone is just like you? Do you not take their personal
> history/story into account?
>
about others, but doesn't our "history" pretty much make us what
we are?
> I don't think any one person can represent a group, but I don't separate a
> person from their identities and relate to them as if their image of
> themselves doesn't matter.
>
It seems that thes rednecks don't think that way - assuming they can
think at all.
> Hate crimes are less about motive than they are about the publicly announced
> motive. It isn't "hate" that is the crime, it is the intention to intimidate
> a group of people through violence.
>
IMHO once they are tried and found guilty - hang them, if only in the
intrests of the gene pool.
Bob
Bumper sticker of the month "I'm straight, but not narrow."
--
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
Ocean Gypsy
>In article <7064vn$9s8$3...@news1.exit109.com>,
> crys...@exit109.com (Ocean Gypsy) wrote:
<....>
>> Taking NJ for an example, I don't think your figure of 8 times as
>> likely is accurate.
>
>It's a nationwide figure, and I think there's a key thing here that you
>mebbe missed. The stat is not that blacks are 8 times more likely to
>be on death row than whites. It's that blacks who commit capital
>crimes against whites are 8 times more likely to be given the death
>penalty than blacks who commit crimes against blacks, whites who commit
>crimes against whites, or whites who commit crimes against blacks.
You're right, I did miss the key to what you were saying.
Bbbbut...
>"Particularly heinous" is in the mind of the beholder, and apparently
>(again, nationwide) the most particularly heinous crime is when a black
>person kills a white person.
>
>I think *that* reflects the racism of the judges and juries who made
>those decisions.
I still disagree with this, again based on my view down here in the
Garden State.
While this sure isn't Texas or Florida where they actually execute
people that are on death row, it's a pretty representative state as far
as black/hispanic population goes. I distinctly remember the murder
trials of the whites that I listed and not one black person stands out
in my mind. Heinous crimes, as far as inducing outrage, swaying popular
opinion and influencing juries and judges has resulted from white
killers here in the past 15 years anyway.
Maybe it's different everywhere else, although my suspicion is that the
southern states may be solely responsible for inflating this statistic.
I find it very hard to believe that Joisey is the model for imparting
justice without regard to race, and am therefore hopeful that what that
stat shows is the past and we're slowly moving towards more equitable
treatment.
> No, I don't think putting black people in jail is inherently racist
>nor do I think there should be any sort of affirmative action for
>implementing the death penalty. Far from it. I think that laws that
>call upon judges and juries to make a subjective value judgment -- like
>"particularly heinous" or "motivated by bigotry/hate" -- reinforce and
>reflect existing values and/or prejudices. I don't think you can
>legislate morality, and I don't think the hate crime laws can or will
>change anything for the better.
Then I can't help but think that you're bordering on calling for an end
for either trial by jury or deciding penalties based on motive, for how
else do we determine if something is self defense/manslaughter/murder
one if not by using the value judgements of the all-too-human beans
involved in the process, subjective warts and all?
Yes, you need to educate everyone in the process and you need to make
sure the safeguards such as the appeal process works (and my personal
seal of approval for much of what the ACLU does), but you can't refuse
to recognize that bias/hate crimes should be identified and dealt with.
Do you really believe that education alone will triumph over peoples'
ignorance? I don't, and I don't consider myself the most cynical person
in the world. I think that people who kill someone primarily or solely
because they are a member of a particular "group" (regardless of what
that group is) deserve to pay an additional penalty for that, because in
my view that's treating someone as if their life is of less value.
MHO, YMMV.
Just as other aggravating circumstances are given weight in determining
someone's sentence, I think bias/hate should be considered as well. I
think that it needs to be carefully handled so that it's objectively
proven (membership in associations, threats uttered, etc.) but I do
think it needs to be part of the system.
>[snip]
>
>>
>> I dunno...while I abhor government oppression, I can't agree that
>> this one is clear cut in that arena. I do think that there is a lot
>> of work that needs to be done in this area that makes things more >>
fair, however.
>>
>
>Well, I guess a big part of my point was that the government is Us and
>we are the Government. The implementation of this law will be no
>better or worse than the average person's bigotries.
Disagree, unless it's permitted to be subjective and then I'm with ya.
>
>> Crys, who sez congrats
>>
>>
>
>Thankewe. 'Twas wonderful. The very best part was enjoying the
>meeting of my family with friends that I've know for 16 years, or 8
>years, or even 3 or 4 years ... and watching them all have such a great
>time together. Loved it.
>Loveditloveditlovedit.
Kewl beans, :-)
I tried to stop by to see youse guys today, but after taking the wrong
exit and wandering back and forth on Rt. 322 for more than a bit I gave
it up. The timing prolly wasn't good anyway (10:40) and I didn't have
your # with me.
Crys, who did, however, have a loverly dinner and dessert with Pyrite
and Rose
-
Political correctness assumes we're morons who, if allowed to do
anything naughty, will immediately turn into unmanageable terrors.
-Bill Maher
Ocean Gypsy
Mark Haas <vh...@panix.com> wrote:
>crys...@exit109.com (Ocean Gypsy) writes:
<....>
>> "Hate" can very well be the *sole* motive of a crime such as murder
>> and as such, I see no reason why it shouldn't be weighted just as
>> other motivating factors are. 'Tis serious stuff when someone kills
>> another simply because they don't like 'em or decide that they're not
>> equals.
>
><IMHO>
>The act of killing someone already shows that the individual doing the
>killing has dehumanized zir victim. If they saw the other as a person
>and not an object to be dealt with, then it would become impossible
>to kill. It would be like killing a part of yourself. Soldiers,
>police, both tend to dehumanize their victims ("enemy", "scum") when
>they kill other than out of immediate need. (/IMHO).
I don't think that this happens in all instances, in fact I think that
most murderers don't do this. When a murder occurs where the victim is
known to the killer, I think that more often there is some other kind of
justification going on such as jealously, betrayal, abuse (crimes of
passion) and the victim is not dehumanized at all.
In an odd way, it almost seems "better" (for some sick value of the
word) if you believe that murderers all dehumanize their victims because
it's so difficult to believe that anyone can kill someone they
know/love/consider an equal. Unfortunately, I think it happens all the
time.
Crys
bikerbabe in black leather
>In article <707r4q$f9k$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>> If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
>> next? My supposed ethnic background?
>
>I don't think your being queer has a friggin' thing to do with your
>motivation.
Then why did you even bring it up when I hadn't said a word about it?
I remind you that I've not used that "political capital" in any
of this discussion. *you* brought it up. *you* dismiss what I was
saying because of it. You apparently completely ignored anything else
I might have said in this thread and try to track me off onto your own
tangent then try to call me on it when I refuse to go there.
> I think you use the political capital you gain by calling
>yourself "queer" to justify and protect your opinions.
And I think your pomposity and condescension affects your ability to
make a cogent argument. *shrug* now that we've degenerated into the
insults, is there any point in continuing?
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
Ray Henry
[snip]
: Bias Crimes (hate crimes) aren't about hate as a secondary motive. It is
: the primary motive -- sometimes the only motive. I am with Sheba, though.
: I don't think specific groups should be listed. An assault committed with
: the intent to intimidate should be a separate category of crime. Something
: like sexual assault is a different crime than assault.
Hmmm...in general, I don't really like the idea of a "hate crime" law per
se, but this something I think I could probably live with. Assault with
intent to intimidate. [thinking...] Yes. I think, depending on wording, I
could accept such a law. It covers the subject without confining the
application to a particular "target" group or groups, thereby reinforcing
the idea that all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law.
(Treatment of non-citizens under the law is a whole 'nother can o' worms.)
[much snippage...]
: I don't think stiffer penalties will fix bias crime problems. Most 16-20
: year olds (the ones who do most of the gay bashing in the US) don't think
: about consequences at all. What will work, though, is a shift in the
: conscienceness the general society.
Agreed. But I think that's a long time in coming. Most people I've
encountered (for long enough to make a determination) seem very resistant
to change. And since the parents usually pass their biases on to their
children, well, it's gonna be an uphill battle. Not hopeless, but damn
difficult.
FWIW, I've found that minorities are frequently just as racist as the
"normals" who are racist toward them. I lived for a while in a
predominantly low-income/minority neighborhood and received some of the
poorest treatment of my life from the "natives". On the other side of the
coin, the single mother across the way (a black woman) was the nicest gal
you ever met. Always had a "hello" when we'd pass in the stairwell.
[Resisting the urge to wander from the topic as I think of the few good
folk from back there...]
I guess my final point here is that racism/bias/hate isn't confined
strictly to white hetero anglo-saxons. Racism cuts across all boundaries.
Tends to get more publicity when the "bully" is a hetero WASP and the
"victim" isn't, tho'.
Antryg - Still remembering the derogatory graffiti painted on my
window by a neighbor.
ElissaAnn
>Lynn Dobbs <part...@access1.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>: I don't think stiffer penalties will fix bias crime problems. Most 16-20
>: year olds (the ones who do most of the gay bashing in the US) don't think
>: about consequences at all. What will work, though, is a shift in the
>: conscienceness the general society.
>
>Agreed. But I think that's a long time in coming. Most people I've
>encountered (for long enough to make a determination) seem very resistant
>to change. And since the parents usually pass their biases on to their
>children, well, it's gonna be an uphill battle. Not hopeless, but damn
>difficult.
>
>FWIW, I've found that minorities are frequently just as racist as the
>"normals" who are racist toward them. I lived for a while in a
>predominantly low-income/minority neighborhood and received some of the
>poorest treatment of my life from the "natives". On the other side of the
>coin, the single mother across the way (a black woman) was the nicest gal
>you ever met. Always had a "hello" when we'd pass in the stairwell.
>[Resisting the urge to wander from the topic as I think of the few good
>folk from back there...]
Don't resist. (Nobody else here does.) It sounds like you have some good
stories to tell.
>I guess my final point here is that racism/bias/hate isn't confined
>strictly to white hetero anglo-saxons. Racism cuts across all boundaries.
As a child, I was often distressed by racism
from other Jews. We would read in Sabbath
school about how we were treated badly for
thousands of years just because of our ethnic
heritage, and then I would hear the teacher, and occasionally my own mother,
privately making racist comments about black
people.
>Tends to get more publicity when the "bully" is a hetero WASP and the
>"victim" isn't, tho'.
Perhaps that's proof that a change has come.
There was a time when those crimes would have gotten no publicity at all.
Fitzjon
In article <36299...@news.access1.net>, "Lynn Dobbs"
[...context snipped...]
>>Do we still live in a country were we can freely say "I hate Icks"?
>
>Yes, You can freely say you hate anyone. You just can't incite to riot,
>induce to commit a crime or assault someone because you hate them. The
Rev.
>Phelps is a good case. He gets to say it he (and God) hates fags all the
>time. That isn't a crime. When he interferes with the lives of others, he
>violates the values that create freedom in society. Sometimes it is a
>crime, sometimes it is a civil justice matter.
>
>>If I commit a crime against an Ick, and the point of whether I've ever
>>identified myself as an Ickphobe through my speech or my association is
>>an issue, then we don't, and that supression of thought is as chilling
>>as the self-censorship you would have had to perform yourself 30 years
>>ago. Remember "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"?
>>It applies to the KKK as much as to the NAACP.
>
>
>You don't see the main point, I think. It isn't a hate crime for you to
>beat one up because you hate icks. It is a crime of assault. It isn't a
>crime to announce that you hate icks. However, announcing the inferiority
>of icks publically then brutally assaulting one or more icks is different.
>It isn't about what you think or do but about the message contained in what
>you do. It isn't a hate crime to beat an ick because you hate icks. You
>have to make it public that you are beating an ick _because_ you hate icks
>_and_ that icks deserve it.
>
If I'm reading you right, you're saying that it isn't a hate crime for me to
beat up an Ick because I hate Icks. And it's not a crime of any type to
state publicly that I hate Icks....but put the two together, and I have
committed a hate crime? Do I have it right?
Seems to me, then, that the hate crime exists only to the extent that other
Icks feel threatened, and if that's so, it illustrates to me the needless
dilemmas you get when trying to nail obfuscation onto perfectly good laws.
How many Icks have to feel threatened by the pronouncement-and-beating? And
what if they feel threatened anyhow, even though the assailant has the good
sense to save himself 10 extra years in jail by keeping his racist cakehole
shut?
I don't know about other jurisdictions in the world, but where I live there
are some mighty stiff maximum sentences for such crimes as aggravated
assault or attempted murder, and rightfully so.....IMO - rather than
creating an entirely new (and problematic) class of crime, I think we'd be
better served using the full weight of the existing laws. If an individual
can get as much as 10 or 15 years in the penitentiary for attempted murder,
regardless of the reason, then see to it that your judges and prosecutors
remember that.
Jeff <--would rather get shot in an escape attempt than be the new racist on
the cellblock....
---
"Praise Allah, but first tie your camel to a post." (Sufi proverb)
Matthew Daly
said:
>Yes, You can freely say you hate anyone. You just can't incite to riot,
>induce to commit a crime or assault someone because you hate them. The Rev.
>Phelps is a good case. He gets to say it he (and God) hates fags all the
>time. That isn't a crime. When he interferes with the lives of others, he
>violates the values that create freedom in society. Sometimes it is a
>crime, sometimes it is a civil justice matter.
Okay, let's get hypothetical.
Rev. Phelps is driving down the road in his beat-up late-model
Oldsmoble. He rear-ends a Ferrari at a stop light. The Ferrari folds
up like a stepped-on pop can, no appreciable damage to the Olds. The
owner of the Ferrari is a gay man who feels threatened that a homophobe
would run him down. He goes to court and argues that, since he had a
rainbow flag on the back of his car, it is conceivable that Phelps ran
into him knowing that he would be none the worse for wear. Phelps
defends himself saying that the man wouldn't have come up with such an
outlandish theory to explain a simple accident if he wasn't on the
public record as anti-gay, so he is being persecuted for views that he
has a constitutional right to express.
You be the judge: do you put a man in jail for a few years for causing a
fender-bender against the wrong person, or do you leave the world free
for an army of Bible-wielding zealots to drive over the cars of gay men?
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly mwd...@pobox.com http://www.frontiernet.net/~mwdaly/
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right - Ashleigh Brilliant
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
--- Support the anti-Spam amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org ---
bikerbabe in black leather
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>You be the judge: do you put a man in jail for a few years for causing a
>fender-bender against the wrong person, or do you leave the world free
>for an army of Bible-wielding zealots to drive over the cars of gay men?
In the absence of clear and compelling evidence that Phelps had intended that
particular incident to be a deliberate attack (the concept
of "reasonable doubt"), which may be something like witnesses hearing
Phelps saying something like "I'm going to run you down you ^*%&**(!
faggot!, or saying in court "he's a faggot and I ran him down because
they deserve it" or something similar, you treat the matter as you
would any other accident.
Michael Sullivan
bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <702ejc$hke$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Fitzjon <fit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>country, what bothers me is that a crime apparently motivated by hate or
>>racism is somehow worse than a similar crime without that motivation, and
>>therefore worth more prison time.
>Why does that bother you?
>Do you want to live in a society which condones violence perpetrated
>by hatred?
In what way is wishing to treat one murder or assault with intent like any
other, regardless of motivation, "condoning violence"?
The problem as it has existed till now is that some murders have gone
relatively unpunished because many have viewed hatred as an excuse.
Writing into law that irrational bigotry shall never be considered a
legitimate defense for crimes against persons would not disturb me in the
least. Hate crime laws, as they are currently constituted, do.
>I mean, for god's sake folks, we currently lock up drug users for far
>longer than we do people who commit a violent crime,
Yes we do, and apparently we must correct this travesty
of justice as quickly as possible by introducing yet another.
>I'd much rather we weren't locking up people for victimless crimes, then
>letting people who have proven their propensity for violence back out
>among peaceable folks.
I'd rather see that myself. I confess I can't see the connection with
legislation on hate crimes.
>>earlier in the day....for all those reasons, the young man was charged
>>under federal hate crimes statutes and sentenced to 25.5 years in a
>>federal pen. Without parole.
>Well boo hoo. If you're going to get all charged up by rhetoric to
>the point you go out and hurt or kill innocent people, then
>you deserve whatever happens to you.
Do you?
I take this to mean that you support not only the death penalty, but many
or most of the various tortures proscribed by the UN commission on human
rights, as long as they are only perpetrated against violent criminals?
How much faith do you have in the state, or in twelve angry people not to
make mistakes?
Michael
Dr. Brat
[context milled and sold for floorboards]
>
>If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
>next? My supposed ethnic background?
>
>
Supposed? *heh* C'mon, Sweetie, we all know that your ethnic background
is pure Indiana White Trash. *grin*
Elizabeth (but I'd never call you queer...)
Ted Gavin
>Lynn Dobbs <part...@access1.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>: Bias Crimes (hate crimes) aren't about hate as a secondary motive. It is
>: the primary motive -- sometimes the only motive. I am with Sheba, though.
>: I don't think specific groups should be listed. An assault committed with
>: the intent to intimidate should be a separate category of crime. Something
>: like sexual assault is a different crime than assault.
>
>Hmmm...in general, I don't really like the idea of a "hate crime" law per
>se, but this something I think I could probably live with. Assault with
>intent to intimidate. [thinking...] Yes. I think, depending on wording, I
>could accept such a law. It covers the subject without confining the
>application to a particular "target" group or groups, thereby reinforcing
>the idea that all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law.
>(Treatment of non-citizens under the law is a whole 'nother can o' worms.)
>
I see this discussion focusing on fear of repression, by trying to
identify "targets", rather than motives. I said it before: A hate
crime is not against an individual, nor is it simple assault, murder,
etc... A hate crime is terrorism, pure and simple. You don't need to
prove that a person wanted to blow up "A" to prove a terrorist act. You
just need to prove that it was a means to an end, and define the end.
Killing a gay man in Wyoming because he was gay and "needed to be taught
a lesson" is no different than bombing a planeload of people out of the
sky to protest US policy toward the Middle East, with the exception that
the loss of individual lives is greater. If you're going to measure the
dangerousness of a criminal by the number of heartbeats they stop,
you're missing the point. That's like saying a serial killer who has
only killed three times is less dangerous than a serial killer who has
killed ten times. You're reasoning after the fact, rather than
assessing potential before the fact. A hate crime is a tool to a
desired end. It is not, ever, constricted by such paltry
characteristics as race, height, gender, or personal preferences.
Bombing abortion clinics is a hate crime. Beating african-americans,
women, homosexual men or women, Jews, christians, WASPs, or any other
person is all a hate crime. It is not geared toward the individual, it
is intended to bring gratification to the perpetrator of the incident.
"Killing a fag" was "fun" for those people.
The ideal picture of a hate crime is that which started this thread. A
group of people kill a human being, because he was of a particular
characteristic. Period.
Anyone who would care to defend that reprehensible act can start by
stating why it would be okay for a two women to abduct, torture, and
leave for dead a man who hit on one of them in a bar, but presented no
threat of harm whatsoever (random act). Then compare it with the fact
that the women went to the bar that night with that intent, because they
were sick of men, and were just waiting for any victim (hate crime).
Until that can be answered, don't bother.
There was no other motive than the repression of that person's
characteristic. They wanted to teach him a lesson on why it's bad to be
gay. Ironically, they did, in the most fundamental way possible. He
can't be gay anymore. He can only be mourned. In much the same way
that several million people who disappeared from humanity sixty years
ago can't be gypsies, or gay, or Jewish, or Russian, or Balt, or any of
the other groups targeted by those responsible. They can only be dead.
In most cases, not even remembered. And those are only the major
incidents of *this* century.
Perhaps I'm at fault for much of this, as I spewed off a few things in
ascii. Interestingly, Tony Quirke sent me an e-mail which pointed out
that which I was waiting for the appropriate moment to add. I guess
this is it. By condemning the perp in the Carolinas to a life in
prison, with all the bad things that go with that (or could go with
that), I had *not* washed my hands of him. I had in fact, held on very
strongly to his crime. Washing my hands of him would have been to
support ostracizing him. In times past, people who committed acts
against society as a whole would have been cast out, ostracized, and
left to live and fend for themselves, with no contact, ever. And while
that might be the ideal solution for this, we just don't have that
luxury. Our only recourse is to recognize that motive as it exists, and
make it so utterly consequential for those who insist upon repression
and terrorism, that eventually the results will be felt. But, that is
an aspect of civilization that is new, and it will take many years,
possibly generations, before any effects are notices, IMO.
>[much snippage...]
>
>: I don't think stiffer penalties will fix bias crime problems. Most 16-20
>: year olds (the ones who do most of the gay bashing in the US) don't think
>: about consequences at all. What will work, though, is a shift in the
>: conscienceness the general society.
>
>Agreed. But I think that's a long time in coming. Most people I've
>encountered (for long enough to make a determination) seem very resistant
>to change. And since the parents usually pass their biases on to their
>children, well, it's gonna be an uphill battle. Not hopeless, but damn
>difficult.
>
>FWIW, I've found that minorities are frequently just as racist as the
>"normals" who are racist toward them. I lived for a while in a
>predominantly low-income/minority neighborhood and received some of the
>poorest treatment of my life from the "natives". On the other side of the
>coin, the single mother across the way (a black woman) was the nicest gal
>you ever met. Always had a "hello" when we'd pass in the stairwell.
>[Resisting the urge to wander from the topic as I think of the few good
>folk from back there...]
>
>I guess my final point here is that racism/bias/hate isn't confined
>strictly to white hetero anglo-saxons. Racism cuts across all boundaries.
>Tends to get more publicity when the "bully" is a hetero WASP and the
>"victim" isn't, tho'.
>
Again, you're focusing on racism as a motivation for hate crimes. It
isn't. And that's where the distinction is drawn. If racism were made
illegal, I would oppose such a law, because it is everyone's right to be
a practicing idiot. It's even within everyone's rights to not realize
that they can be a passive racist, too. We had a great conversation
late on night at CraftBoink (bow to Kristen) about that very subject.
But, what determines a hate crime is the motive. Again, I will claim
that the motive is the compelling factor.
Ironically, it presents the criminal who has committed the hate crime
with the same choices they now have. Admit to the crime in favor of a
lesser sentence, or suffer the consequences of lying. Could it be that
someone could commit a hate crime, but confess to a random killing to
avoid the stiffer penalty? Yes. And that bothers me a little, but plea
bargains are done all the time, and are the price of the justice system
in the US today.
A hate crime doesn't have to be murder, tho'. It can be physical
assault, true, and probably most often is, but it can other things. For
example, if you know someone is Muslim, and you feed that person pork
because you think that it's pretty darn funny that you can defile their
religion so easily, that is a hate crime. It's realistic to presume
that most people reading this will probably think that such a statement
is absurd, but compare it to this fact:
The first residents (of all groups) interred in concentration camps were
not tattooed. It was not until it was learned that the Judaic religion
prohibits such markings as a defilement of the human body that the
tattooing was added. It was done, per transcripts of persons convicted
of having taken part in that, to further humiliate and oppress the
prisoners.
They are the same means (humiliation in the face of beliefs), and the
same end (defilement), just a different act.
My only defenses of the stiffer penalties for "fate crimes" are these.
First, they represent a criminal particularly devoid of humanity,
morals, and will. Second, people who are imprisoned tend to band
together. Those convicted of hate crimes also tend to see themselves as
the victim of those whom they were trying to oppress. Hence, if a man
is sentenced for killing an Ick, they are likely to hate Icks even more.
They will not only become a cause celebre' for their friends on the
outside (if applicable, a la White Supremacists), but it may well breed
even more contempt for Icks while in prison, rather than rehabilitate
that type of motivation. That is why I support hate-motivated murder
being a capital crime, or at least life without possibility of parole.
Ted, but this is just the way *I* see it.
Ted Gavin http://home.att.net/~tedgavin
-----------------------------------------------------
"...[driving] a stick on the DC Beltway would give
you the impression that you were actually rowing
the damn car."
Robert Blackshaw, in s.s.m
98.08.09
Keith Rickert
>You be the judge: do you put a man in jail for a few years for causing a
>fender-bender against the wrong person, or do you leave the world free
>for an army of Bible-wielding zealots to drive over the cars of gay men?
My impressions from a couple of years of reading the newspaper
are hardly definitive, but there have been a number of assaults
in recent years in which hate crime status was asserted, but were
not eventually prosecuted under that law. (This is all in CA, which
does have some hate crime laws). I am suspecting that the DA offices
dont really want to go for this one in anything less than a clear cut
case. To the extent that this is the case, I am glad of it.
Keith
--
Keith Rickert | "You let me down, man. Now I don't believe
ke...@eve.cchem.berkeley.edu | in nothin no more. I'm going to law school!"
rick...@netcom.com | Jimbo, The Simpsons
ke...@imppig.caltech.edu |
Seth Breidbart
ElissaAnn <elis...@aol.com> wrote:
>mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>>Ooh, I've got it! We start by building a giant wall around Manhattan....
>>-Matthew, we could even invite the law-abiding citizens to leave before we
>>were finshed. I bet that they'd both really appreciate that.
>??? Are you talking about the city where people stand on line for *everything*
>without getting into fights?
Have you ever visited London? They even queue up at bus stops. New
Yorkers just form an orderly mob.
>Come visit my fair city some time. We may have an in-your-face attitude, but
>we're the friendliest people in the world, and we're amazingly civilized.
That part is true.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
>In article <707ve6$ji8$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> jamm...@mindspring.com (Jimmy A. Roberts-Miller) wrote:
>> In article <707q1c$reo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thus spake dun...@hotmail.com:
>> >
>> >That said, I'll try to restate my position a little more succinctly: you
>> >can't legislate morality.
>> This is a pithy statement which happens to be completely untrue.
>> Our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM is based on and represents a series of moral
>> choices.
>I meant: You can't legislate changes in morality.
Yes, you can. What you can't do is have that legislation be
_effective_.
Se...@it.just.don't.work
Keith Rickert
>If you get X years in prison for committing a crime, and X+Y years for
>making a bigotted speech and then committing the crime, then the speech
>is not protected.
Ehh...the same can be said when dealing with evidence of premeditation
for murder charges. Fortunately for my mystery-novel reading habit,
writing about a murder is protected speech. But if you happen to
write about murdering someone, and then happen to do so, in the
same way, you're going to have a pretty difficult time convincing
a jury that it was a crime of passion.
Any time intent plays a role in sentencing, this problem will
surface, as speech can provide evidence of intent.
I'm not convinced that this is a problem of protection of speech,
particularly. After all, a crime needs to be committed.
Conspiracy laws bother me somewhat more, as they can be more readily
used to suppress speech.
bikerbabe in black leather
Dr. Brat <ecou...@discover.wright.edu> wrote:
>a birdie told me that ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) said:
>[context milled and sold for floorboards]
>>
>>If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
>>next? My supposed ethnic background?
>>
>
>Supposed? *heh* C'mon, Sweetie, we all know that your ethnic background
>is pure Indiana White Trash. *grin*
Guilty as charged!
>Elizabeth (but I'd never call you queer...)
Awww, man, I'm losing those political points already!
Matthew Daly
Rickert) said:
>My impressions from a couple of years of reading the newspaper
>are hardly definitive, but there have been a number of assaults
>in recent years in which hate crime status was asserted, but were
>not eventually prosecuted under that law. (This is all in CA, which
>does have some hate crime laws). I am suspecting that the DA offices
>dont really want to go for this one in anything less than a clear cut
>case. To the extent that this is the case, I am glad of it.
I am too, but I'm still concerned that the tool exists. District
Attorney is a political job, and if a DA were ever in a race where she
needed to demonstrate Concern For the Needs of the Minority Community,
she might decide to roll the dice on a few borderline cases just to
prove that she was fighting the good fight.
Mark Haas
> a birdie told me that ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) said:
> [context milled and sold for floorboards]
> >
> >If you didn't know I was queer, what would you say my motivation was
> >next? My supposed ethnic background?
> >
> >
>
> Supposed? *heh* C'mon, Sweetie, we all know that your ethnic background
> is pure Indiana White Trash. *grin*
There is no such thing as Indiana White Trash. All of it is imported.
>
> Elizabeth (but I'd never call you queer...)
-- Mark (Sometimes known as Virgil)
Tony Quirke
> Perhaps I'm at fault for much of this, as I spewed off a few things in
> ascii. Interestingly, Tony Quirke sent me an e-mail which pointed out
> that which I was waiting for the appropriate moment to add. I guess
> this is it. By condemning the perp in the Carolinas to a life in
> prison, with all the bad things that go with that (or could go with
> that), I had *not* washed my hands of him. I had in fact, held on very
> strongly to his crime. Washing my hands of him would have been to
> support ostracizing him.
To be exact, I pointed out that imprisoning a person automatically
involves a duty of care; it is your *responsibility* to ensure that the
prisoner's human rights are respected.
The idea of being blase in the face of such things as rape in prisons
is an appalling denial of this responsibility, and the claim that you
"washed your hands of them" is incorrect when you chose to imprison them.
- Tony Q. (Wonder if this post will make it out)
--
"Have you tried Austria? If you can learn to run down kangaroos, you
won't starve...." - phx...@pop.phnx.uswest.net, protesting a comment
about ignorance in a significant part of the American population.
ElissaAnn
>The ideal picture of a hate crime is that which started this thread. A
>group of people kill a human being, because he was of a particular
>characteristic. Period.
>
>Anyone who would care to defend that reprehensible act can start by
>stating why it would be okay for a two women to abduct, torture, and
>leave for dead a man who hit on one of them in a bar, but presented no
>threat of harm whatsoever (random act). Then compare it with the fact
>that the women went to the bar that night with that intent, because they
>were sick of men, and were just waiting for any victim (hate crime).
>Until that can be answered, don't bother.
Ted, you lost me here. I don't get why the women in the second case did a
worst thing than in the first case. I don't think that a huge overreaction
that appears to be a crime of passion is a less mean crime than a hate crime.
In both cases, the women abducted-tortured-and-left-for-dead a man who intended
them no harm. Any besides, any two women who abduct-torture-leave-for-dead a
man, simply because he hits on them, obviously hate men. So your point is
lost.
If you change "hit on them" in the story to "hit them really hard with an
intent to hurt", I'll agree that the first case is slightly less awful, but
doing those actions to anyone is *still* infinitely awful. I just read (in
"Fermat's Enigma") that some infinities are actually bigger than others, but
not in practical life.