Matthew Shepard was NOT a hate crime

[wuapinmon]

According to this GOP Congresswoman.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZmB4EiQtQI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZmB4EiQtQI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[Donuthole]

It's a hate crime becuase I hate it!

[wuapinmon]

I'm not fan of 'hate crime' laws, but the Shepard case was clearly a case of targeting him because of 'hatred' of an Other. I think all murder should have the same penalty, regardless of motive, but this was either a case of woeful ignorance, or one of calculated risk to appeal to some base that looks at attacks upon gays as an extension of God's vengeful arm.

We've all said stupid shit from time to time, but this was beyond asinine; this appears to be a blatant twisting of reality for political gain, which is just another reason, among the many, why I'm no longer a Republican and why I grow more and more liberal with each passing day.

[Fiyero]

To the people who fear the Hate Crime Bills will add unnecessary litigating, do they realize how many torts the DA already tries to pile upon the perpetrator? Nobody is ever charged for assault only. They try for first-degree battery, second-degree battery, third-degree battery, assault, mayhem, disturbing the peace, etc. And how, hate crime.

[woot]

I'm also not a fan of hate crime legislation, but what is it with politicians and their need to lie about things? Is it because the worst that can happen is that a video gets passed around the internet and they get made fun of by a few people? I don't know how many of these I've seen in the last month.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm also not a fan of hate crime legislation...

I own two hate crime jerseys for home and away games.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm with you, waupinmon. I think Shephard's murder was out of hatred, but murder is murder and the penalty should be the same regardless motive.

What I don't understand about the reasoning behind pushing hate crime laws is that what more do those who push for it want? For example, if the only option for punishment for homicide was the death penalty, how would it be possible to punuish the perp more than putting him to death?

Also, what are the determining factors that consitute a hate crime? The race of the perp and victim? The sexual preferance of the perp and victim? The gender of the perp and victim? Can a homosexual be charged with a hate crime for killing a neo-Nazi?

For me, it's rare to determine that a crime was commited out of hatred, as the grey area is much to large to know for sure.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm with you, waupinmon. I think Shephard's murder was out of hatred, but murder is murder and the penalty should be the same regardless motive.

What I don't understand about the reasoning behind pushing hate crime laws is that what more do those who push for it want? For example, if the only option for punishment for homicide was the death penalty, how would it be possible to punuish the perp more than putting him to death?

Also, what are the determining factors that consitute a hate crime? The race of the perp and victim? The sexual preferance of the perp and victim? The gender of the perp and victim? Can a homosexual be charged with a hate crime for killing a neo-Nazi?

For me, it's rare to determine that a crime was commited out of hatred, as the grey area is much to large to know for sure.

Hate crime laws are premised on the idea that stiffer penalties will deter crime better than lighter ones. All people deserve protection from violence, but some people, because of targeted hate, need more protection than others. Stiffer penalties equals better deterrence equals more protection. At least that is my understanding of it.

[Indy Coug]

Well, we all know that the other violent crimes perpetrated are due to other's general goodwill towards men.

[JohnnyLingo]

but some people, because of targeted hate, need more protection than others.

Is it based on the ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim? I thought the motivation of the perpetrator is what counted.

[TripletDaddy]

I own two hate crime jerseys for home and away games.

I am an admitted bandwagon hate crime legislation fan. I didn't really get into HCL until it was pretty popular.

[il Padrino Ute]

Hate crime laws are premised on the idea that stiffer penalties will deter crime better than lighter ones. All people deserve protection from violence, but some people, because of targeted hate, need more protection than others. Stiffer penalties equals better deterrence equals more protection. At least that is my understanding of it.

But how is it determined that the crime was committed out of hate?

[JohnnyLingo]

But how is it determined that the crime was committed out of hate?

That is the question.

It's easy when the criminal is yelling offensive slurs at the victim while pummeling them (or whatever). It's also fairly easy if the bad guy burns a cross on the lawn of a black family.

But I read a piece a couple years ago about prosecutors digging into the lives of the defendant, looking for anything that might mean they were a bigot. E-mails, letters, journals, CD's, movies, etc. etc. It opens up a "right to privacy" can of worms.

[il Padrino Ute]

That is the question.

It's easy when the criminal is yelling offensive slurs at the victim while pummeling them (or whatever). It's also fairly easy if the bad guy burns a cross on the lawn of a black family.

But I read a piece a couple years ago about prosecutors digging into the lives of the defendant, looking for anything that might mean they were a bigot. E-mails, letters, journals, CD's, movies, etc. etc. It opens up a "right to privacy" can of worms.

I'm with you on this.

I'd just like to hear the thoughts of someone who supports hate crime legislation so I can better understand how they can see the hatred more clearly.

[wuapinmon]

That is the question.

It's easy when the criminal is yelling offensive slurs at the victim while pummeling them (or whatever). It's also fairly easy if the bad guy burns a cross on the lawn of a black family.

But I read a piece a couple years ago about prosecutors digging into the lives of the defendant, looking for anything that might mean they were a bigot. E-mails, letters, journals, CD's, movies, etc. etc. It opens up a "right to privacy" can of worms.

But, what if some guy looks at your girl while you're out, and he bumps shoulders, shoves you, and then you open a can of whoop ass on him, and in the heat of the moment, while you're beating him, you yell some kind of slur at him.....what then? I don't think this is a hate crime, but I'd worry that any time anyone says something as a slur that it could be considered a crime.

Stalking Matthew Shepard is one thing, calling someone an epithet while fighting is another thing. Even if you come back and kill the guy later, it's more out of hatred of him than his ethnographic classification. Because of the complexities and ease with which justice could be miscarried in these circumstances, I'm opposed to hate crime laws.