House Votes to Expand Hate Crimes Definition

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Except that they're wrong.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---