Homosexuality + Hate Crimes

[Redefeatbush04]

Before you vote, I reccomend you watch this 20/20 video of the Matthew Shepard murder, which is relatively unbiased. Included in the video are exclusive interviews with the killers.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041127201309990004

[A18]

Hate crimes legislation is a total joke. If you kill someone, and it's on purpose, that's hate.

Yes, killing someone for being gay is stupid. So is killing someone for looking at you the wrong way, or because he stole your girlfriend, or anything else. There is no good reason to murder someone - it's always equally stupid. Abolish the concept entirely.

[Lunar]

Hate crimes involve more than murder.

If a spray nazi symbols all over a Synagogue it's a completely different form of vandalism from me spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station.

[A18]

Well, he mentioned killers in his post. Give me an example of another anti-gay "hate crime."

I don't really think two cases of vandalism should be treated differently, except for taking into account the extent to which the place was vandalized.

[Lunar]

I don't really think two cases of vandalism should be treated differently, except for taking into account the extent to which the place was vandalized.

Shrug.  If you think spray painting the word "n" or  "f****t" all over someone's house is the same thing as if the person spray painted a bunch of flowers, then ok.

[A18]

Both should be illegal, and there should be a harsh sentence.

[DaleC76]

Hate crimes involve more than murder.

If a spray nazi symbols all over a Synagogue it's a completely different form of vandalism from me spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station.

Is this because of the symbols or just because of the place that was vandalized?

Spraying nazi symbols all over a Synagogue is worse than spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station, but I would also say that spraying anarchy symbols all over a Synagogue is worse than spraying a nazi symbol at a bus station.

[Lunar]

Hate crimes involve more than murder.

If a spray nazi symbols all over a Synagogue it's a completely different form of vandalism from me spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station.

Is this because of the symbols or just because of the place that was vandalized?

Spraying nazi symbols all over a Synagogue is worse than spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station, but I would also say that spraying anarchy symbols all over a Synagogue is worse than spraying a nazi symbol at a bus station.

I meant because of the symbols.  Hell, it could be the place too of course.  I wanted the two places to be comparitive in the normal legal sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we both agree on that.  However, I was asking if there should be a LEGAL DIFFERENCE between the words and the flowers.

So, I have a question.  Does anyone here that agrees with the concept of hate crimes think that homosexuality shouldn't be included?

[Peter]

Hate crime legislation is generally a farce in my opinion. It really should be left up to Judges to decide what the aggravating factors of a case are - if there is an element of baseless hate involved in the commission of the crime, then the common sense of the Judge will cause him to increase the sentence - he doesn't need a piece of statute to tell him to exercise his common sense.

If you spray paint nazi symbols all over a synagogue you should definitely get more time than if you spray painted anarchist symbols, because clearly the symbols are sprayed out of hate and are meant to intimidate Jews - again the common sense of a Judge should prevail in these cases and he should be able to increase the sentence, but not be forced to by staute.

Trying to statute ever aggravating circumstance that could exist is a joke in my opinion, better to say something like:

Murder is against the law; The Judge may take account of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances in deciding upon the sentence. Heres some recommended sentence for the average murder. Go use your common sense.

As long as hate crimes stay on the statute books though, homosexuality should be one of the aspects covered by the laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In case of a vandalized synagouge, then an extra penalty compaired to plain vandalism could be justified on the basis of an implied threat to commit future criminal acts.  However, there is no need for thought crime legislation to impose such extra penalties.  Thought crime laws are bad laws enacted with the best of intentions.

[Horus]

I think that after awhile, hate crimes won't exist anymore, as hate for someone based on race, sex, religion etc. in the US is, on average, dropping.

But for now, seeing as that's not the situation yet, so long as there are hate crime laws, sexual orientation should be included in them.

[John Dibble]

Hate crimes legislation is a total joke. If you kill someone, and it's on purpose, that's hate.

Yes, killing someone for being gay is stupid. So is killing someone for looking at you the wrong way, or because he stole your girlfriend, or anything else. There is no good reason to murder someone - it's always equally stupid. Abolish the concept entirely.

Agreed. If I murder someone for sleeping with my wife, I hate him. If I murder someone to get their wallet, I don't necessarily hate the person, but it's just as illegal. Motivation outside self-defense/defense of others is for the most part equally wrong for such crimes, we shouldn't give special status to certain people - tell me when the last time a hate crime was commited and persecuted against when the victim was a straight, white male!

Hate crimes involve more than murder.

If a spray nazi symbols all over a Synagogue it's a completely different form of vandalism from me spraying an anarchy symbol at a bus station.

This is a bit different, but 'hate crime' shouldn't be the word for it. The difference between plain vandalism and this example is the intent to intimidate the resident. Now, 'hate crime' wouldn't be applied if I spraypainted 'get the f*** out' on a fellow straight, white male's house, now would it? Yet it would be pretty much the same as the hate crime version applied to a minority. So in this case the term should be something more along the lines of 'unlawful intimidation' or something similar, not 'hate crime'. It is illegal to threaten to kill someone, and this is similar enough to go under whatever laws apply to that(or new ones with similar wording).

[Lunar]

If you want to apply an extra penalty and call it "intimidation" then ok, I don't care.  I just think the legal system needs a mechanism to recognize the difference between two significantly different acts.

It's actually probably better with the intimidation route.

[Nym90]

If you want to apply an extra penalty and call it "intimidation" then ok, I don't care. I just think the legal system needs a mechanism to recognize the difference between two significantly different acts.

It's actually probably better with the intimidation route.

Good point. The bottom line is that it is worse, and hate crimes are just an attempt to acknowledge that which we know intuitively to be true. I don't think many people can honestly say that racist graffiti is no different whatsoever and no worse from any other kind of grafitti. So while hate crimes are less than an ideal mechanism for expressing this, it needs to be there in some form.

I agree that murder should always be considered equally bad, however. Murder should always receive the maximum possible punishment to begin with, so whether hate was involved or not is irrelevant.

[Gabu]

If we must have hate crime legislation, then homosexuals should certainly be included in it, although I'm a bit iffy on the merits of hate crime legislation.

Also...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see Philip has voted twice.

[Alcon]

I believe that any random killing should be more serious. After all, what's worse: killing a little girl for fun or killing someone who was sleeping with your wife?

However, in all lesser crimes, it should also be considered. I think that any random crime is not only an indicator of psychopathic behavior, but also something that is just worse in general. This is why I also believe that the killing of animals should be treated VERY SERIOUSLY, since that is the number one indicator of serial killer behaviors.

[Lunar]

I believe that any random killing should be more serious. After all, what's worse: killing a little girl for fun or killing someone who was sleeping with your wife?

Well, they generally are.  Usually the difference between the two is that the wife one is second-degree and the girl one is first-degree.  In addition, there's actually a fairly wide variance of sentences you can get for murders, and cruel ones generally get MUCH more.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

you said nothing of killing gays alcon, your flank is exposed

[A18]

Killing someone for sleeping with your wife should be legal.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

how about killing ur wife for sleeping with someone?

[Alcon]

you said nothing of killing gays alcon, your flank is exposed

If you didn't think I didn't reference killing gays, you aren't reading into my post as I intended.

Killing a gay person is a random killing. It may have some fake reasoning, but it is a random killing.

And, yes, I do know it is more serious - which is exactly why I support current legislation. In lesser crimes, though, I believe that any truly random killing (not one just of opportunity) should be punished soundly. Basically, my belief is that someone being gay does not meet the standard for an even half-reasonable excuse. Not that a bruised male ego does either, but at least psychologically it's a better excuse than "he hit on me and I'm not gay."

[Josh/Devilman88]

Yes/No... like if someone goes and writes "Kill the Fags"(sorry but getting point across) then yes. But if someone hold up a sign saying Homosexuals will go to Hell for their sin. No because that is their right.

[Peter]

Yes/No... like if someone goes and writes "Kill the Fags"(sorry but getting point across) then yes. But if someone hold up a sign saying Homosexuals will go to Hell for their sin. No because that is their right.

Writing that is a crime because it is obviously an incitement to commit a crime, the later is not an incitement and is just an opinion, obviously protected under the First.

To all those who are using the example of killing a man you caught sleeping with your wife:

Depending upon the circumstances, a good lawyer could probably get you manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility (or whatever the US equivalent is), especially if you actually caught them at it, as given the circumstances, its reasonable that you'd be rather irate and therefore not fully responsible for your actions.

[John Dibble]

To all those who are using the example of killing a man you caught sleeping with your wife:

Depending upon the circumstances, a good lawyer could probably get you manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility (or whatever the US equivalent is), especially if you actually caught them at it, as given the circumstances, its reasonable that you'd be rather irate and therefore not fully responsible for your actions.

Not sure if it's the legal term, but here we call it a 'crime of passion' as opposed to 'premeditated'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Depending upon the circumstances, a good lawyer could probably get you manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility (or whatever the US equivalent is), especially if you actually caught them at it, as given the circumstances, its reasonable that you'd be rather irate and therefore not fully responsible for your actions.

A good lawyer can get diminished responsibility for loads of stuff: I remember reading about a man who killed his wife with a hammer... but got manslaughter on diminished responsibility on the grounds that his wife nagged him too much...