House Votes to Expand Hate Crimes Definition

[Eris0303]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 11:52am

While everyone seems to be focusing on the GLBT section of the bill I am pleased to see that they're including people with disabilties.
House Votes to Expand Hate Crimes Definition

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 12:21pm

Yes--and on the anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death and on the eve of the Equality March!

It takes one more vote in the Senate and the president's signature and then it's LAW!

Updated On: 10/9/09 at 12:21 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 12:59pm

1984 should be required reading for anyone who wants to go into politics. If they've already committed the crime, it's no longer a thoughtcrime, and ALL criminal prosecution explores the attacker's motives.

Not to mention the idiot that thinks it will inhibit ministers' freedom of speech, because their anti-gay rhetoric could be linked to attacks. Maybe ministers should spend less time provoking their congregations against homosexuality and more time preaching about how loving your neighbor doesn't involve attacking them.

Matthew Shepard was murdered when I was 13. I can't believe something so obvious has taken this long.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 7:15pm

I don't really like hate crimes laws in general, but I am glad of this as a legal precedent, because it could lead to actually important and good LGBT rights legislation protecting the rights to employment, housing, etc., and the repeal of DOMA and DADT.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 8:07pm

Oh, I heartily approve of hate-crimes laws!

I want to know that if I get killed because someone was out to kill "some gay/any gay" and I just happened to be the gay he found, that his motive would be taken into account at sentencing.

That's all hate-crimes laws are, really: laws attaching specific penalties to specific motives, just as a premeditated crime of passion has a specific penalty different from the penalty for an involuntary manslaughter.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:07pm

Definitions like "premeditation", "manslaughter" and "crime of passion" only deal with two things: Whether the defendant intended to kill the victim, and how far in advance that intention was formed.

You can argue that "crime of passion" gets more detailed about motivation, but again there's the timescale factor - it has to be a massive provocation that occurred right before the murder did, something extremely and blatantly obvious like catching your spouse in bed with someone else. There's nothing speculative there.

I don't think you need to go beyond that. Murder is murder is murder, and all human lives are equally valuable.

I don't think hate crimes legislation does any good at prevention. Its only positive effect, so far as I can tell, is that it manifests the legal establishment's disapproval of racism, etc. And that can be done and has been done in far better and more substantive ways.
Updated On: 10/9/09 at 10:07 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:22pm

But a hate crime is not a crime against a single person. A hate crime is committed by someone looking to kill "some black/any black" or "some Asian/any Asian" or "some gay/any gay."

So the victim is not just the individual attacked but every member of that community who potentially might have been attacked.

And in the case of hate crimes against gays, the victim is every citizen who might have simply been perceived as gay or lesbian or transgendered. So including gays in hate-crime legislation also protects heterosexuals who don't fit into strictly defined gender definitions.

So all this is really is a further definition of a specific type of premeditation. Someone who says "I hate all black people and want to harm one of them, doesn't matter which one" deserves specific sentencing guidelines.

I think the publicizing of hate-crimes laws have had a profound protective effect on communities that are victimized.

The will also affect parole policies, with an additional protective effect.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:31pm

I have to agree with Trey Parker and Matt Stone and their views on hate crime laws.

"If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime, but if somebody kills somebody of a different race, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? The motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. It is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crime laws do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals are different, that we aren't the same. But instead we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes."
-South Park

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:34pm

Except that they're wrong.

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:41pm

I have a philospohical problem with hate crime laws. To me, a person should be punished for their actions rather than their thoughts. That said, I think that such laws are needed right now for practical reasons. Sadly, there are parts of this country where it's 'OK' to beat someone up because of their race, sexual origin, or othere factors. Criminals may get little or no punishment from municipal or even state courts. Hate crime laws allow the federal court system to punish criminals when localities are unwilling or unable.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 10:52pm

Again, I think there are better ways to prevent hate crimes - education, strong minority communities to garner political and social power, and the enforcement of equality laws are all more effective and important.

I get what you're saying, PJ, about why a beating motivated by racism is more pernicious than one motivated by, say, petty jealousy, but:

a) That gets unbelievably messy in court, as all questions of motivation do. The only person who can speak to the defendant's motive is the defendant; everyone else is just speculating. These things can only be "proven" by circumstantial evidence, and that makes me uncomfortable as hell.

b) You say that a hate crime against one gay person is a crime against all, because the perpetrator doesn't care which gay person they hit as long as they hit one. But that last bit is vital - as long as they hit one. Not everyone. Just one. In the long term they may want to kill all gay people or something, but we only try people for the crimes they committed, and someone who intentionally beat on gay person still only intentionally beat one gay person. A gay person who is no more or less valuable or important than any other person who gets a beating.

c) Another way to interpret the statement that a crime against one gay person is a crime against all is to say that that's because of the fear it spreads to the rest of the gay community in the area, for instance. But that argument can go way too far. All murders, assaults, etc. spread fear - to the neighborhood, to people of similar demographics or people in the same situation as the victim (waiting at a bus stop, for instance). But we only punish for the actual crime committed.

[Jilani]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 11:11pm

While there are convincing arguments to be made against hate crimes legislation in general, the bottom line for me is that federal law today already recognizes certain hate crimes (those motivated by race, color, religion or national origin), so that ship has already sailed. Given that is the case, refusing to recognize hate crimes based on sexual orientation sends the message that those kinds of hate crimes aren't as bad as those based on race.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/9/09 at 11:11pm

I see all your points but, nevertheless, I'm glad of this law.

As for, "the only person who can speak to the defendant's motive is the defendant," sometimes there is a surviving victim who heard the words "Take that, you filthy n****r" or some people in the bar who heard the defendants say "Let's go mess up some queers." I would hope their testimonies are admissible.

In such cases, an additional penalty may make you feel uncomfortable as an idealistic young lawyer, but it makes me feel more comfortable as a citizen.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/10/09 at 5:35am

Actually, messes like this are one of many reasons I don't really want to touch criminal law with a forty-foot pole. (I may go into immigration instead. Now there's an area totally free of controversy. :P)

Jilani, you're totally right, and as I said before, I think this is promising as precedent that'll help bigger and better things happen legislatively for the LGBT community. I just hope that some time in the distant future we can drop the notion of hate crimes altogether. They're just...kind of a crude tool.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/12/09 at 2:30pm

And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes...The motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing.

What a moronic statement. So if you kill someone in self defense who is attacking you or accidentally kill someone in a way that is pretty much unavoidable (i.e. someone running in front of your car from a location that was hidden from the view of the driver), then you should receive the same sentencing as a serial killer? If they want to argue semantics, then they should offer up a better solution. If they think motivation should have no effect on sentencing, then I'd love to hear what they'd have to say when a kid who gets caught stealing a pack of cigarettes gets the same amount of jail time as committing grand larceny. Idiots.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/12/09 at 2:56pm

I think when you can demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the attack was motivated by hate against a class of protected persons, then a bump in sentencing for a hate crime is appropriate.

You cannot assume that every attack on a gay man or woman is a hate crime, nor can you assume that every attack on any minority or protected class is a hate crime.

But, the description of this horrific attack below demonstrates what a hate crime is. If you have to infer what an attacker intent is, I agree it creates problems. When that intent is on display for all to see, then I think society needs to say not only is it not OK to attack someone, it is also not OK to attack someone for being part of a specific group.


Attacked For Being Gay.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/12/09 at 3:03pm

Another post mysteriously lost in the ether. I posted about that crime in this thread about 2 hours ago. The thread bumped up, but without the post.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/12/09 at 3:36pm

Welcome to the club, PJ. You should report it to the you-know-whats. Or not. It doesn't seem to make much difference either way.