Justice is not blind to hate crimes

I never heard of a "Love Crime."

crimes of passion

You are right Carol.. but you know certain people do receive certain rights,while others dont...

I want all crimes prosecuted not just special ones!

Straight of "1984". You're going to have "thought police"deciding what is a hate crime,and what isn't.-Norman

Yes Carol I do see where you being called a wop is equal to a gay man being dragged behind a pickup truck and tied to a fence because he is gay.

Lori, the facts do not back up what you say. Matthew Shepherd was a robbery victim, according to law enforcement, and the B.S. about the pickup truck and being tied to a fence because he was gay were invented by the gay rights movement to politicize his death.

The man was murdered and his killers were caught and convicted. that is justice.

Using his death to pass legislation giving homosexuals rights that others don't have is despicable.

What happened to Matthew Shepard is a crime and in my state punishable by death. What more do you want?

Lori, the facts do not back up what you say. Matthew Shepherd was a robbery victim, according to law enforcement, and the B.S. about the pickup truck and being tied to a fence because he was gay were invented by the gay rights movement to politicize his death.

Lori's statement about Shepard being "dragged behind a pickup truck" is not accurate, but neither is Randy's claim that Shepard was not tied to a fence. He was. Nor is Randy's claim that Shepard was simply a robbery victim supported by facts - Shepard was "robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die." Also, the defendants "attempted to use the gay panic defense, arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard." There were other indications that he was targeted because he was gay.

The man was murdered and his killers were caught and convicted. that is justice.

This is true, and neither was charged with a hate crime. Wyoming statutes did not provide for such a charge.

Using his death to pass legislation giving homosexuals rights that others don't have is despicable.

First off, what rights did the legislation give to homosexuals that others don't have?

Secondly, what is despicable about acknowledging the right not to be attacked "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person."

Lori, sadly, is obviously one of the thin skinned ones. Crime is CRIME, for crying out loud !

The FBI began investigating what we now call hate crimes as far back as the early 1920s, when they opened their first Ku Klux Klan case. You old, belle.

Since rape is, by your reasoning, just another assault, I don't find your message compelling. It's special because it targets one segment of the population - and carries with it special considerations, both for social scientists and police officers. Remember when raped women were dragged through the courts, their every action questioned? It was only when we realized that rape is a special kind of crime that we got the Special Victims Units, the more caring ER personnel, the change in attitude by judges. Do you think crimes against children should be treated like crimes against adults? Or is it OK that we see them as special, with special requirements for reporting, trying, and convicting offenders. Do you think we should eliminate the reporting of sexual offenders?

Crimes against gays also have their own considerations. My guess is that you prefer that gays not be protected - and why would that be?

You need to spend more time thinking these things through.

Ah Sarah, leave it to a leftie to twist my words. All crimes are equal.

So are all humans, but it doesn't mean we're the same.

If your words are twisted, it's because you aren't thinking straight.

Sarah, why do you believe that some of us are entitled to more rights than others?

Randy - that's called a "straw man" and it's a logical fallacy, a
poor device for a poor debater.

As to you, Carol, Of course, I didn’t twist your words. I merely followed your logic to its inevitable and nonsensical conclusion. You throw out simplistic catch-phrases like “Crime is crime” and expect to be taken seriously. Of course there is a huge difference between hate crimes and other assaults. They aren’t perpetrated by the same people, don’t happen for the same reason and can’t be prevented or investigated by the same methods.

Nor do they tell us the same things about our society. According to your logic, Kristallnacht was just an sudden upswing in assaults, rather than the turning point in a tragic social breakdown that found its conclusion in the ovens at Auschwitz. We need to track these crimes separately, solve them using different methods, prevent recidivism using different techniques and prevent them using different approaches.

You want to toss out one-liners and then be treated as though you were a serious thinker. You can’t have it both ways. The world is not a simple place – if it is for you, and you like it that way, then don’t try to enter discussions on complex issues.

Sarah - Talking about a straw man argument, your example of Krstallnacht is silly. You imply that "regular" laws prevailed, the perpetraitors caught and put in jail, and yet, even with all that, the ovens still cooked at Auschwitz.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Law enforcement and the legal system caved after Kristallnacht because no one wanted to or could stand up to Hitler.

Then you start demeaning Carol for not being a serious thinker and we're supposed to believe that you are because of how well you diss a fellow person?

Frankly, Sarah's thinking and discussion are quite serious and multidimensional. I realize that not everyone can think deeply, but Sarah has grasped the intricacies of the discussion and moved it along quite articulately, whereas the original poster and some of the commenters clearly have not. It's that two-dimensional thinking that is most dangerous because everything is boiled down into such simple-minded, and usually false, terms that any opinion drawn from it is meaningless.

Others would be wise to reread Sarah's comments and actually think about them rather than reacting defensively.

Sarah's a smart cookie !!!

I'm ambivalent about the idea of hate crimes. Seems to me that the class of crime exists primarily to ensure people are prosecuted for crimes against members of "unpopular" groups. In this country we have a long history of crimes that weren't prosecuted because the victims were "unpopular."

I agree that an assault is an assault. The problem is that a lot of people seem to believe that assault against some people is justified because of their appearance or some other insignificant quality.

Dale - My point was not just that hate crimes went unpunished. It was that ignoring hate crimes is far more dangerous than accepting an increase in armed robbery or mugging. It was far, far more important for Germany to capture and prosecute the perpetrators of hate crimes than it would have been to arrest and prosecute thugs committing a like number of assaults in bars.
Hate crimes have a very different impact on society than simple assaults - they threaten the bedrock of a free society. Because of this, they need to be tracked and prosecuted separately and their perpetrators punished commensurate with the threat they pose.

And we need to have information on rise and fall of such crimes separate from the reporting of simple assaults.

This in addition to the points I made above about hate crimes having different origins, perpetrators, methods of detection, and recidivism factors, and that they are prevented with programs very different from the programs we might use to stop muggings, for instance.

Given all this, claiming that Crime is crime. is simplistic and unproductive. To say that any crime is a hate crime is even more so. The man who mugs you doesn't hate you, and his act is not going to impact society to anything like the degree that a hate crime does.

The ultimate right is ones right of thought.

That is why when devising out judicial system and penalties for actions which were determined to be crimes against society the founders of our great country focused on actions' because they knew that to penalize thought was one of the most egregious acts against a person.

Freedom of thought walks lockstep with freedom of speech.

The founders of our great country may not have been the great thinkers that David considers himself and Sarah but they were unmatched in their wisdom.

Given all this, claiming that Crime is crime. is simplistic and unproductive. To say that any crime is a hate crime is even more so. The man who mugs you doesn't hate you, and his act is not going to impact society to anything like the degree that a hate crime does.

Very well said, Sarah. Motivation for committing crimes matters. A starving man might stop robbing if he is no longer starving. A vindictive man gets more vindictive with every crime. To not recognize the difference is to show a lack of understanding.

I know of no crime that is done for love or even like.

No, most of them are done for money.

To me any crime is a hate crime.

I agree, Deloris.

Some crimes are against a person and some are not only against the person but against their community (or ethnic group or sexual minority) - to strike terror.

That's the difference.

But should one be prosecuted more than another?

That's the problem that hate crime laws address. Crimes against the unpopular tend to be less likely to be prosecuted. In the 60s the federal government prosecuted a lot of criminal cases for violation of civil rights because state and local authorities didn't think it was necessary to prosecute these cases as assaults and murders. The victims were members of unpopular groups. Most of the victims were black.

With the exception of the "Cop" and children I think the prosecution of crime against special interests/groups lies within the fact that America itself has become so "Politically Correct"... Any group not previously considered "Normal" or better yet not considered at all, e.g. Gays, women minorities, etc, etc, are now especially paid attention to. Between the ACLU and all the other "Jump on the bandwagon" groups out there it seems as though one crime is more important than another, shameful as that is, it is the truth.

We need to quit seperating by race, creed and /or color or sex for that matter and realize that to harm another human being for the sake of self gratification is in itself a disgusting and vile act that needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible.

Of course being a father (7 yr old daughter) I have different views when it comes to mine or anyone's children, if you f**k with a child you should just simply be shot, do not pass go, do not collect shit, just drawn, quartered, and SHOT in the f***in head. Little harsh maybe, yeah well, children are our future and to me the most sacred resource we have as humans, to protect them and nurture them and teach them is our duty, to disgrace them in any way deserves the firing squad....

Good article, and thought provoking...

Exactly. First we demand equality, and then, if we get it, we want special rights.

Todd, good comment (you could have gone easier on the language and still made your point).

Justice for all Americans should be enough, but then it wouldn't attract contributions for liberal politicians, would it?

Part of these laws reflects the reality that police tend to look at crimes against gays as far less serious, with the 'they brought it on themselves' routine. The same was once true of rape, and of crimes against African-Americans. That is the source of these laws, not politics. Stop blaming liberals for every idea that you disagree with!

It's not that I disagree with the law, it's that the laws are wrong, and I disagree with liberals like you in general as you do me.

"It's not that I disagree with the law, it's that the laws are wrong, "

See, that's why people like us have such problems with people like you. You make no sense at all. Just a cover for your racism and bigotry, admit it. You cannot stand the fact that minorities who are discriminated against need some extra emphasis in the law to actually force people to treat them equally.

It's exactly because of people like yourself that the law is necessary. Think about that awhile.

Too bad you lose again bill will be signed, why bitch?

It will be signed, I agree, but I bitch because it should be repealed, and I'll bitch until it is. Look who's signing it.

Just when did you stop abusing your children?

Love crimes, today are called crimes of passion and domestic violence.
Carol, I remember the civil rights movement.

I've written about this repeatedly, and even made a video-- hate crimes legislation is STUPID.

Legislation already on the books allows for judges to place greater time to be served on those crimes judged to be worse than others. Has anyone not heard that a certain crime carres a sentance of 4-6 years or 8-15 years or 20 years to life? That is where you apply the formula of whether the particular crime committed by one individual was "worse" than the same crime committed by another. You don't do it in separate legislation that cherry picks certain groups based on whether they are the "in" group of the day or not.

It is the act that is punished!

Even God does not punish a man for his thoughts.

All murders should be considered hate crimes, unless it can be proven without a doubt that it was in self defense...
Why, isnt the pervert who kills little children considered a hate crime?
Why, isnt the creep that kills woman considered a hate crime? Especially, since the child and the woman are supposed to be the weaker ones?

Some crimes are against a person and some are not only against the person but against their community (or ethnic group or sexual minority) - to strike terror.

That's the difference.

Good points,Vickey!

"The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

"By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.""

Succinct and beautifully stated. This is why there IS and should be a difference in how crimes are viewed. That is exactly why we have such words as 'pogram' and 'genocide'.

You're absolutely right, Carol. How dare we even have the word 'genocide' in our vocabulary. Stupid Jews and Queers - thinking that they were special by being herded into concentration camps and tortured and killed in WWII. Was that not SIMPLY A CRIME? Why the hell do we make a big deal about Hitler or the Rwandan massacre? They were simply crimes! They were simply murders, or beatings. No special attention should be paid to them.

(Was I sarcastic enough there to get through your thick skull to make a point? Probably not.)

OH, and according to Cheney and his supporters, all's fair in war. What exactly is the problem?

And if the laws that were on the books had been enforced properly, then the holocaust would have been prevented. Since Hitler had taken over the government and usurped the judiciary then no amount of "hate crime" laws would have made a difference.

The hate crime laws being pushed now are simply a way to suppress anyone from having any sort of disagreement with any government protected group. If anyone disagrees with said group, they obviously hate the individuals of the group and can be sued, jailed or both. Welcome to America 2009.

That's not the point at all, Dale. The point is that we recognized what Hitler did to certain groups not by simple acts of murder, in or out of war, but by what it was - targeted violence towards specific minority groups, based on bias and hate for those groups, not the individuals themselves.

You miss the point entirely. Whether or not you agree with it, culture and society do separate the murder of an individual from the murder of an individual because they belong to a particular group of people, the murderer having a particular racist view of the group in its entirety.

These types of laws are there for a reason, whether you feel they are not warranted or not. If you were in a targeted group, you would feel otherwise. Is it so hard to step into the shoes of those in the persecuted group? What harm does it do your rights simply because society wants to make sure groups are protected from violence.

And by your statement "If anyone disagrees with said group, " you must really have a comprehension problem. We are not talking about dissent - we are talking about violent crime. Surely you can tell the difference.

I suspect that many people who rise up against these hate laws are personally affronted that they will be called out on their violent acts being not simply crimes against another individual, but a display of violent behavior against a group whom they hate because of who they are. Sometimes it's Jews, sometimes it's Muslims, sometimes it's Blacks, sometimes it's Gays. Who do you have a problem with, Dale?

"The hate crime laws being pushed now are simply a way to suppress anyone from having any sort of disagreement with any government protected group. If anyone disagrees with said group, they obviously hate the individuals of the group and can be sued, jailed or both."

Please make the connection for us, Dale. Are you saying that the way you want to express your disagreement with a member of a protected group is by beating the piss out of them without being held responsible for all the real effects of your hate? Because you know you will still be able to hate protected groups and express that hatred in other than violent ways just like before.

He sure showed his TRUE colors.

R.F. - Think about it...and that's the point. Hate crimes legislation is all about what a person thinks or feels. It is absolutely no stretch for some government bureaucrat to say that what a person says is a crime because it could provoke someone else to commit that crime.

(Now, I'm not talking about person A telling person B to go out and beat up or kill someone - just like yelling fire in a theater that is not protected speech)

That's where the chilling aspect of this comes in. If you say or write anything that could possibly be tied to someone else committing a crime or, most importantly, possibly committing a future crime, then you could be tried for that. You can then say goodbye to the 1st Amendment.

It's simply a natural extension of this philosophy that brought us this current legislation.

And, of course, the right thoughts and wrong thoughts on the "in" groups and "out" groups are decided on by people who have prejudices - as we all do - and are backed up by the full power of the Federal (or state depending on the case) Government.

We now become a country walking on eggshells because if we say anything that is potentially offensive to the "in" group then we risk being hauled off to jail.

The whole idea of the 1st Amendment was to protect people from this type of tyranny by stating that political speech be protected. Check out the Federalist Papers and you'll see the reasoning behind why our founders did this. They were reacting to the overreaching power of the state in regulating someone's life.

It is absolutely no stretch for some government bureaucrat to say that what a person says is a crime because it could provoke someone else to commit that crime.

Doesn't matter what a bureucrat says. It is no crime to hate. You can hate all you want. You can still hate and tell others what you think should be done to the people you hate.

We now become a country walking on eggshells because if we say anything that is potentially offensive to the "in" group then we risk being hauled off to jail.

Maybe we have become that country in your mind and maybe the minds of others that don't understand the law. Your hate is protected as long as you don't act on it in an illegal way.

Well said, RF. Any law can be distorted in this extreme if viewed with this kind of paranoia and unreason.

If they passed a law against beastiality, only sick sob's would object.

Just don't beat up gays or minorities for the simple fact that they are gay or minorites.
This law is just and criticizing it is akin to criticizing beastiality laws, reveals so much about the person.
If they could think outside the hate, you could see your lame excuses are exposed as ridiculous drivel.

Uh Rude!

There are laws against bestiality and no one is objecting, and hate crime laws are different because they try to control thought..

"This law is just and criticizing it is akin"

No it isn't!
You would however say so to attack those who do not think like you do.

"If they could think outside the hate, you could see your lame excuses are exposed as ridiculous drivel. "

If you could even think!

There are laws against bestiality and no one is objecting, and hate crime laws are different because they try to control thought..

The purpose of the law is protect vulnerable groups, communities and society. You can think whatever you want without fear of breaking any law. You can say whatever you want to say as long as you don't incite immenent violence.

In Wisconsin:
"For a class B misdemeanor, a less serious crime, the maximum fine is $1,000, and the maximum imprisonment is 90 days in jail. If the class B misdemeanor is a hate crime, the maximum fine is $10,000, and the maximum sentence is one year in jail."

Justice? A protection of a vulnerable group? No! simply unreasonable!

Need?

2007 aggravated assault:
855,856 cases

2007 aggravated assault classified as hate crimes:
945 cases.

Hate crime laws are simply liberals trying make believe they are doing something to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The numbers suggest that assault is a problem and hate based assault is not!

The left would be showing more compassion if they responded to all victims, NOT just their favored class of people.

Crime statistics source

So the next time I bitch-slap a homo that propositions me, I am guilty of a hate crime?

Or a woman slaps a guy in the bar after a lewd comment or suggestion is now a hate crime?

Yup!