![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Q: What do you do when you and two of your buddies, in a drunken haze, beat another acquaintance to death over a period of 24 hours or so, wrap his naked body in a tarpaulin and hide it in his garage, then get turned in to the police ten days later by a third friend to whom you boasted of the murder (and to whom you emailed camera-phone photos, at work, during the process)?
[1] He wasn't.
no subject
The defendants opened themselves up to it by using the repellent 'gay panic' defence.
Also, it's impossible to know at this date whether he was gay or he wasn't. The fact is, the defendants are claiming that he was, which makes this a hate crime.
no subject
no subject
I still don't see that as being proven by any point of this.
The fact is, the defendants are claiming that he was, which makes this a hate crime.
Because beating and torturing someone, hiding a body, and bragging about all of the above is ... somehow worse because they called him gay?
This neatly encapsulates why "hate crimes" are a bit of political theater that serves no real purpose.
The fact that it might - might - prevent someone from using a appeal-to-bigotry as an "affirmative defense" is hardly worth the Orwellian issues with "thoughtcrime".
beat another acquaintance to death over a period of 24 hours or so, wrap his naked body in a tarpaulin and hide it in his garage, then get turned in to the police ten days later by a third friend to whom you boasted of the murder (and to whom you emailed camera-phone photos, at work, during the process)?
no subject
Hate crimes absolutely do serve a real purpose. You are, if memory serves, a straight white male, so you don't understand, but I'll try.
When someone is the victim of an assault or murder, most of the time it is about an issue between the victim and the perpetrator.
When someone is the victim of an assault solely for being queer, a person of colour, what-have-you, it becomes about terrorizing a group.
To use an example posted elsewhere:
1) You wake up in the morning, and there's some graffiti on your garage door. "Fucking kids," you'll think, and try to clean it up.
2) You're gay, and you wake up in the morning, and there's graffiti on your garage door saying "Die AIDS fuckers". You get worried. You wonder what will happen next. Are you safe? You're being targeted because you're gay. Are your neighbours okay? They're gay too. You start living in fear because what was perpetrated agsint you was a hate crime, which is merely a very localized form of terrorism.
Must be nice to be privileged, but do try and recognize that there are many of us who are not, and who have to deal with living in fear because of assholes.
no subject
Isn't that an aggravating circumstance in most HC locales? I do believe that it is! You're discriminating against me because of my (presumed) race and sexual orientation!
Why wouldn't I understand about hate crimes because I'm presumed to be straight and white?
Ok, so straight whites aren't allowed the Victim Card.
Who else? Please be inclusive and exact.
That's why this is thoughtcrime - and Orwellian - because the crimes and the victims are only defined afterward.
Your 2 examples aren't the same. It's a lousy pair of "examples" to try and show me my fallacy.
1) I wake up, and there's "KISS RULES! STYX SUCKS!" on my garage, I don't worry overmuch. It's against the law. Just not a very serious offense.
2) I wake up, and there's "DIE [anything]" on my garage, that's a threat. (And it's a much more serious crime against the law than mere graffitti).
What you're saying is that if the artists use ... certain - undefined! words - the court must ascertain that the artists were trying to scare a "protected" group - meaning that if say, the local gang spray paints "DIE SNITCH" on my garage, that it's really not as bad as if they said "DIE FAGGOT SNITCH".
It removes the crime from a mostly-factual finding "The defendant did/did not paint on property not his own" to a contextual issue of what the defendant meant to do - and only if it's against a certain subset.
no subject
Again:
Hate crimes are not targeted at one person, they are targeted at a group of people. Generally speaking, at a group of people who are gistorically victimized--women, people of colour, queers.
And, sorry, straight white males in North American society don't tend to be victimized in the same ways that women, people of colour, and queers do. Do you really think that gaybashing is only about someone beating someone else up? Do you really think that lynchings are only about killing one person? Of course not. They are actions designed to cause terror in a certain segment of the population.
Laws tend to recognize the difference between crimes which have a limited effect versus those which affect the community at large. That is what hate crime legislation addresses.
However, I'm quite certain that you'll just continue to be snarky and refuse to understand that despite vaunted claims to the contrary, all people are not treated equally, and that yes, extra protection is needed for some. I am done with you.
no subject
Then how does this "neatly encapsulate proof" that more laws are needed?
This crime wasn't about terror, it wasn't about a group of people, this particular case is totally at odds with your argument.. The murder wasn't (alleged) to be committed to be designed to cause terror - he victim was killed in private and the crime covered up.
That is what hate crime legislation addresses.
Which as flawed as it is (and the Orwellian issues it raises and you have been ignoring), is mooted by the fact that this case is the opposite of what you're claiming now.
It's a (hopefully flawed and useless) attempt at rationalization. But it invoked a knee-jerk reaction in you - which demonstrates more about you than I, I'm afraid.
all people are not treated equally, and that yes, extra protection is needed for some. I am done with you.
Ah, yes, invoking Orwell is absurd.
But some animals are more equal than others.
Right. My mistake.
no subject
That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.
no subject
Extra protection is needed for some.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Well, if you're going to insist those two aren't very analogous, I belive you'll have to explain it to me. They certainly seem to be, well, identical to me.
That is not what I said, you intellectually dishonest fuck.
Thank you. This demonstrates exactly my problem with "Hate Crimes Laws".
You've dismissed my arguments solely because of your presumption of what "group(s)" I belong to. You've ignored that this case is in direct, diametric opposition to what you're now arguing.
Now you get (very) angry, and project "intellectual dishonesty" onto me - because I had the audacity to point out that your argument fails this case. (And I'm from a to-be-ignored class.)
Who's guilty of intellectual dishonesty here? Who's guilty of hating someone because of their class?
I don't know your class, I don't care. The fact that you have to presume classes (very incorrectly) for the people you disagree with, in order to dismiss their points demonstrates exactly my concern about how "Hate Crimes Law" is used.
You ignored all of that in order to slander and insult, only because of your bigotry. If you've got a irony meter, it ought to be pegged.
So, under your rationalization, you lose even more because you're hating me while being wrong!
no subject
I'll try and use small words--maybe that way you will understand. I'm not very hopeful, but I suppose it's a good deed to at least try to educate those who are regressive in their thinking.
Some groups are deserving of more protection is not 'some are more equal than others'; it is an attempt to address the fact that some groups are easier to victimize than others, and are frequently victimized for that reason amongst others.
Children? Unable to protect themselves, ergo deserving of more protection.
People of colour? Historically in North America (particularly the USA) had no recourse for protection, as even attempts at self-defence would be met with even more severe violence.
Queers? See above.
Women? See above.
Extra protection brings victimized groups up to the same level.
You are one disgusting person, you know that? I projected nothing on to you. You took what I said and twisted it to fit your preconceptions. That is intellectual dishonesty, you turd.
no subject
I dislike you ebcause you are an intellectually dishonest fool who can't even argue his own laughable position without resorting to twisting what I have said.
I pity you because you are brainwashed by the peculiarly American 'git yer hands off me' attitude. As I said to the other person in this thread, I suspect you're a Libertarian. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fucks other ducks to make little baby ducks, and is often found swimming on ponds, it's probably a fucking duck.
I feel sorry for you because you are so privileged that you are completely unable to comprehend that some of us are not.
But hate you? No.
no subject
Where do you stop?
Committing murder should be just as much a crime (and after all, the victim is just as dead) whatever the motivation. Terrorizing or harassing someone should be just as much a crime whatever the motivation. If you declare some people to be entitled to special, extra protection under the law, where do you draw the line between the ones entitled to special protection and the ones who aren't? What do you do when everyone's entitled to special protection?
I think this is one of those situations where it's impossible to both treat everyone equally and at the same time treat everyone fairly. But you know that if you treat some people unequally, someone will complain that it's unfair.
But one thing I know for sure is that if we ever want to fix the problem, our legal system has to stop accepting "But he was GAAAAAYYY!!!!" as a defense. You felt threatened because you thought he was coming on to you? THEN FUCKING GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
no subject
I don't think that it does.
It's possible that some jurors might be swayed - but that's the problem we've got with juries. (Why's OJ out playing golf today?)
Given the story as reported (which is pretty bad), I think the problem is that there's some local political clout with the parentage of one of the accused - more so than his lame excuse. (Which is really just a version of the "Twinkie Defense")
In fact, the attention that this has drawn has been soley because of that stupid attempt. I believe that he will decide that he chose.... poorly.
no subject
no subject
Someone spraypaints "die, bitch" on my garage, I call the police. And then I call my painter (who happens to be a sweet, sweet pastor, and will be very offended on my behalf. Would be on yours, too).
As far as being afraid of more? Been there. Done that. Got the therapy.
You want to make hate crimes go away? Educate them away, don't legislate them away. Legislation just makes things stupider.
Here's your byline for ANY legislation: Is this a law that is worth someone being killed about? Because remember, if it wants to government can, ultimately, impose capital punishment as the final sentance to any broken law.
Do you think hate crimes should be punished by someone's death? Honestly?
no subject
no subject
Government reserves the right to itself to practice capital punishment. Regardless of if it says that it will not right now do so, it certainly will not allow the citizenry to do so, under any circumstances. Government can, and will, change its own position on any number of topics at any given time; this could, under sufficient pressure, become one those topics.
If you cannot think critically, you cannot act, you can only react, and then not necessarily appropriatly. You are, in short, a panicked sheep. And it is pointless to argue with a sheep.
no subject
You're pathetic. I assume you're a Libertarian. The two seem to go hand in hand.
no subject
I didn't say you're stupid. I'm actually assuming you're quite bright, otherwise you wouldn't be on Alaric's journal - stupid people don't tend to be here; they generally fail to understand him.
I said you're a sheep, and in this particular argument, you are. You can't see past your fears, and so you want someone else to fix the problem for you. Legislate it away, make it so that the other side's fears are bigger than yours, and then yours will not be a problem.
It doesn't work that way. It never has, it never will. Trying to explain this to you is pointless, because you don't want to hear it, you don't want to listen, you don't want to do anything but make the fear go away. You're a sheep in this regard. I don't know you well enough to know if you are in any other way. But this is where it ends for me - feel free to insult me more if you'd like, if it'll make you feel better. I don't mind, really. But trying to show you that legislation won't work is pointless, because you're too damned scared to listen.
no subject
It's not about legislating away fear. It's about punishing severely those who attempt to instill fear through terror.
Get the fuck over yourself, get off your fucking high horse, and grow the fuck up.
no subject
Oh, C'mon.
Remember, "You can always use them as a bad example!"
no subject
Although there are some very nice Libertarians out there. :) Individually.
As a political party, I find them more or less incomprehensible. You can't use what you can't comprehend, usually. :)
no subject
What a psychopath would do? Come up with some lame excuse why it wasn't his/their fault.
There's a reality check needed here. There are so many heinous aggravating factors already on this murder that for almost any jurisdiction that has the death penalty, these guys would get the death penalty.
The "hate crime" legislation I could get behind would be to make any form of hate or mental state induced by that hate or hate-associated fear, panic, or belief that one is "right" as a result of some hate creed--make that all totally inadmissable.
States can do this. They can make all the "I was right because" defenses based on hate get excluded by the judge so that the jury never, ever hears them.
Legal "insanity" hinges on did the defendant know right from wrong at the time he committed the crime (usually murder). That's why Andrea Yates got off--she believed that murdering her children was the only way to get them into heaven instead of hell. She actually did--she was a member of the same wacky denomination I grew up in, and add psychosis to a thoroughly fucked up worldview and yeah, that's what she believed.
Which means a jihad johnny who believes killing infidels is the right thing to do.... Or homophobes who believe they're nuking gay whales for Jesus.... or whatever---it makes it all very, very gray.
State governments have a lot of leeway to define what "doesn't count" towards being legally insane, and what factors about the defendant's mental state are inadmissable in court.
States can, and should, make all mental state defenses based on hate inadmissable so the judge can keep them from ever getting before the jury.
Then I would support making hatred of some group of which the victim was a member, or was believed by the attacker to be a member, an aggravating factor in sentencing. We don't need to define which groups. If someone is a hater of a whole group of people, then their chances of offending before and not having been caught, or offending again and either getting caught or not, go way, way up. They have this massive motive to go out and hurt people, and they've shown a willingness to do violence to others.
I support a "hatred of a group as an aggravating factor" laws if they don't limit what groups are included. I could also get behind language that would say that the kinds of groups covered are "including but not limited to." A lot of laws use "including but not limited to" language to define what they're talking about by example.
Then, when and if things change to make some other group a target for hate and violence, the law's already in place. It might be some group that doesn't exist yet that we haven't even thought of--like if some new disease makes survivors of it look different and that were to carry some stigma. Remember those hemophiliac kids getting their house burned down in Florida just because they had HIV?
Make it broad enough to cover vicious, violent hate against any group, and I'm behind it 100%.
no subject
no subject
The crime itself is an unlawful act of force against someone else's person or property. The crime itself is a malum in se act--bad in and of itself.
Before George Orwell's parents were a twinkle in his grandfathers' eyes, before England was more than an island of a few savages and a couple of Roman bathtubs, justice systems considered it important what a criminal thought about the crime or the victim before, during, and after the act.
The very term "mens rea" is Latin for "guilty mind" and comes down to us from Roman jurisprudence as a fundamental element of a crime. Breach of the law plus mens rea equals a crime. If there is no mens rea, there is no crime.
Crime has always included thought as a component. Always.
Orwell's "thoughtcrime" was distinct because it was only thought, divorced from action, that was the crime.
Non-Orwellian crime has also always included action as a component. Always. Even the crime with the smallest action--conspiracy--requires at least one overt act. "Conspiracy to commit [blah]"--the required elements of the crime are a plot to do a crime plus at least one overt act in furtherance of that plot. I'm not going to go into all the good reasons we have for conspiracy laws, because I'm not interested in having that debate.
Crime has always been mens rea plus an unlawful act.
Making certain elements of mens rea matter more than others also has a long history. Say Jen and Mary both kill their mothers in law. Jen despised her mother in law's habit of always serving liver meatloaf every time they visited. Mary stood to inherit a million bucks when her mother in law died. Jen hacked off her mother in law's head with a meat cleaver in a sudden rage at being faced with yet another helping of liver meatloaf. Mary planned to have it look like a burglar hacked of her mother in law's head with a meat cleaver, while Mary had a false alibi two states away.
Jen goes to jail for manslaughter, Mary goes to jail for murder one.
Thought has always been an intrinsic element of crime.
Whether Mary is or isn't more vicious is beside the point--most people think cold-blooded killers are more dangerous, so our laws treat premeditation more harshly.
It's reasonable to consider hatred of a whole group an aggravating factor just like premeditation. Someone who hates a whole group of people is always going to have more people they want to harm--and they've demonstrated by their actions the intent and willingness to harm.
Hate crime is not "Orwellian" because it does not criminalize hate divorced from an actual act in violation of the law.
Hate crime laws are, in concept, old hat--just more of the same. What they are is a refinement on the concept of mens rea as it relates to a criminal's likelihood to reoffend, and the impact of his crime on the larger community, and the likelihood that he's done other crummy stuff we never caught him at.
We don't explicitly punish people as criminals for what they might someday do, or how bad they hurt people's feelings, or what they maybe did that we can't prove.
We do, however, implicitly or explicitly, take all of these things into account when we sentence convicted criminals for their crimes. We always have, and in any sane world we always will.
Idealism is pretty, but it's too easy to turn it into a functional suicide pact for society if you try to implement it. We should have already learned that from communism, fascism, islamism, and christendom. Any totalitarian, utopian ideology, when implemented, proves its folly in piled bones.
State of mind is important in crime. It's how we sort out the good or sort of okay people who did something bad from the conscienceless psychopaths. The first group, we need to have mercy for. The latter group, we need to protect our society from. State of mind is all we have to sort them out from each other.
Appealing to Orwell in an attempt to divorce state of mind from the bad act is revisionist history. Crime has always been a marriage of the two.
no subject
My problem with "hate crimes" as a form of legislation and especially sentence enhancement is that in practice, what you said is totally ignored in favor of the publicity of the crime, and the "protected status" of the victims.
As demonstrated by a certain response on this thread.
State of mind is important in crime.
Very true. In practice, the concept of "hate crime" becomes a checklist of what "group" the (alleged) perpetrator is judged to be in versus the group of the victim, and how politically correct the crime, perp, and victim are, rather than what the actual crime is.
Crime has always been a marriage of the two.
Very true. So then why is a "hate crime" different?
no subject
no subject
no subject
If you're not privileged, then say so. But everything you're saying is what continually gets spouted out of the mouths of those who are privileged. Again.. looks like a duck? Check. Quacks like a duck? Check.
Probably not a fucking goose.
no subject
Because that makes my stance, my voice, my experience, my ethos greater?
Because if I'm "not privileged", I'm worth listening to? But if I am, I'm not?
I thought I was "twisting your words" to point out that you presumed to label me (and others)?
Now you ask me to label myself so you can evaluate my arguments?
No, I'll stand my arguments as arguments. The labels that apply to me don't matter.
To wit: This case has nothing to do with "hate crime".
Your insistence that it does runs totally counter and opposed to your declaration of what hate crimes are.
You get angry at me, when you don't agree with yourself, and I point this out.
You don't know me, much less "very well".
So you have to project reasons to dismiss me, because your arguments are all based upon what "class" you belong to, and who's deemed to be allowed to have a relevant viewpoint.
Well, that kind of is my point about "Hate Crime Legislation", after all. I don't, err, really, need to argue with you, as you're... making my point for me.
no subject
And yes, this is a hate crime. As soon as those psychopaths claimed 'gay panic' as a defence, it became one.
no subject
There is zero evidence in this case thus far that the victim was gay, as his murderers claim. They picked "gay panic" as a defense because it was the only thing they could think of that they thought likely to keep them out of jail. It's not a hate crime. It's an excuse. Nothing more. It's on the level of "The dog ate my homework." Only nastier.