I'm not sure about the concept of "hate crimes" in general.
As was pointed out, the government gets to call out the groups that It considers to be an appropriate target of hate crimes. What about, say, vegetarians, Marxists or polygamists? This whole business of adjusting punishment according to what the State perceives to be in one's mind just seems to fly in the face of the First Amendment.
Why not prosecute the act instead of the mindset? When the State turns to prosecuting the mindset, it runs the risk of "blessing" the prejudice by by persecuting it.
annatopia
· 7 months ago
frankly this is my take on lots of hate crimes legislation. punish the action, not the thought.
granted, i abhor much of the thought, but the mind should be legally free. but free thought ends at the tip of your nose. once you take action, it's a different story IMO.
after all the first amendment does say *congress shall make no law* etc.
nicho
· 7 months ago
They're not prosecuting the "mindset." That's a common misconception.
But they *are* prosecuting the mindset--part of any prosecution it seems to me would have to demonstrate in some manner that the assailant had some feeling with respect to the group to which his victim belonged. That feeling--his mindset--is important, as well as the assailant's belief that his victim is in fact a member of a certain group. In a sense, hate crime legislation punishes people for their beliefs.
Note that I didn't say "hate"--I can well imagine that a case could be brought in which the assailant acted in the unemotional belief that all people in the victim's category needed to be eliminated as a matter of benefit to society.
The categorization is something that's defined by the State--and there's a problem. I'm sure that there are many who think that pedophiles should be expunged from the population by any means possible.. Would the attacker of a person whom he believes to be a pedophile be convicted of a hate crime with the current legislation?
This "hate crime" business is very boggy ground, it seems to me.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
that is, their "right to kill" without enhanced penalties. but i appreciate the rhetorical flourish.
NOM - auditions part 1 - Auditions from the making of the informercial.
NOM - auditions part 2 - Auditions from the making of the informercial."
annatopia
· 7 months ago
"special rights" are nothing new for religious folks in this country.
silly me, i thought that the constitution (as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS) applied to everyone equally, but see, i was disabused of that notion in my current conlaw class.
already anyone who believes in god in this country has more "special rights" that anyone else, if we're talking constitutional protections. this is yet another case of projection on their part. i'll give you some examples.
don't want to take a picture for your driver's license? tell the DMV you believe that pics are graven images and voila - no picture for you! (this is for real - a lady in OK used that excuse) want to be a conscientous objector? if you're religious, no problem! if you're not religious, well, you have to jump through a bajillion hoops to attain CO status. want to pull your children from public school after the 8th grade? hey, it's no problem as long as you're religious! you don't have to send your kids to those pesky schools until they're 16 like everyone else.
those are just a few examples, and don't EVEN get me started on the establishment clause v exercise clause debate, because again in almost every single case the religious folks win out over the so-called wall of separation.
magster
· 7 months ago
John:
Have you been following the case of Angie Zapata out of Greeley, CO (formerly Marilyn Musgrave country, and still a pretty politically conservative meat-packing town on the CO plains). Angie was a transgender female who was biologically male. She was bludgeoned to death by her boyfirend when he found out she was biologically male after they had previously been intimate. The state is using the boyfriends' oft stated homophobia as motive to prove first degree murder, while conversely, the defense is using the same evidence to prove that he "snapped" as a defense to the mental state to prove first degree murder. The jury is deliberating.
So, does homophobia give you a limited right to kill in rural CO? We'll find out in a few hours.
Denver Post and just about every other Denver media outlet is covering this story pretty closely if you want to track through the trial over the last couple of weeks.
Older_Wiser
· 7 months ago
It's being covered live on TruTV. The 32 yr old gangbanger, Andrade, who killed Zapata allegedly was out to "prove" something about his anti-gay sentiments to his homies, as alleged by the prosecution. Even went to court with Zapata for a traffic offense, where Zapata was addressed as "Justin Zapata" (her legal name). His claim about not knowing Zapata was a bio male hinged on his saying all he had gotten before the killing was a bj, and when he found out differently, he "snapped." Andrade is scum.
magster
· 7 months ago
BREAKING:
Andrade convicted of first degree murder and bias-crime.
Who will protect the Fatherland from the International Jewish Conspiracy and the International Communist Conspiracy and the International Islamic Terrorist Conspiracy and the Editors of Mad Magazine and the Peace Freeks who want us to lose in Vietnam and Timothy Leary?
Joneses
· 7 months ago
You mean that the religious right considers themselves as above God or at least equal to God?
These people have always frighten me. They are truly insane.
brb915
· 7 months ago
Are these people crazy????? If they stood up to get the obviously crippling pressure off their brains, they would realize that to get their way would mean that Osama would be exonarated 'cause he was list'nin to God as well........the mental vacancy of these bankrupt blowhards is truly spectacular
Older_Wiser
· 7 months ago
: )
Dave of the Jungle
· 7 months ago
The Ohio Militia is planning to march on Washington:
This is the tack they took with their over-the-top anti-abortion rhetoric.
By claiming that certain doctors were "killing babies," they incited people who went to clinics and killed people. However, the religious "leaders" then claimed that none of the blood was on their hands -- just that the murderer was "deranged."
What they fail to note, in fact, was that they were giving permission to murder. If someone was, in fact, in the process of killing actual babies -- and not clumps of cells -- you would be justified in killing them to save the babies. This is the theory that the murderers were acting on.
The preachers deliberately confuse clumps of cells and "babies" to inflame the passions of their listeners.
And, it's the same with the anti-gay rhetoric. All of the stuff coming out of the right wing religions is so over the top, we laugh at it and mock it, but there are disturbed people who take it for real. The gathering storm bullshit is obvious to us -- but there are people who aren't wired too tightly and who think gays are a real threat to their families, their children, and their marriage.
This sort of fear mongering is deliberate and the people who spew it should be held accountable. They know what they are doing.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
i don't think doubling the sentence for assault would be seen as a "blessing". hate crimes laws exist because hate crimes terrorize an entire minority, not just the immediate victim. they are a more serious threat to society, on a par with targeting police officers and judges (which also carries an enhanced punishment). it's true that somebody has to decide who is being terrorized, but surely that's not what's bothering you. would you eliminate leniency for "careless" murder versus pre-meditated murder? do you agree with the motivation for making that distinction?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
interesting what has happened with Disqus. I can't do replies anymore.
threadmonitor
· 7 months ago
Reminder:
Your comment won't show up until you register with Disqus.com and verify your email address. We have been approving individual comments in an effort to help, pending your email verification. And while most have completed the verification, a few of you haven't. In the future, your comments will not appear on the blog until you verify your email. If you dont know how to verify your email, or are having other problems with the comments, please post a message to one of our moderators, or to John, and we can get it fixed.
Thanks, John and the Moderators.
samiinh
· 7 months ago
In the early days of Mormonism, death squads were standard procedure. I wonder if they still have death squads to quiet those who speak ill of the cult?
All Comments
As was pointed out, the government gets to call out the groups that It considers to be an appropriate target of hate crimes. What about, say, vegetarians, Marxists or polygamists? This whole business of adjusting punishment according to what the State perceives to be in one's mind just seems to fly in the face of the First Amendment.
Why not prosecute the act instead of the mindset? When the State turns to prosecuting the mindset, it runs the risk of "blessing" the prejudice by by persecuting it.
granted, i abhor much of the thought, but the mind should be legally free. but free thought ends at the tip of your nose. once you take action, it's a different story IMO.
after all the first amendment does say *congress shall make no law* etc.
This explains it
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df49np7n_191fmpn5sh5
Note that I didn't say "hate"--I can well imagine that a case could be brought in which the assailant acted in the unemotional belief that all people in the victim's category needed to be eliminated as a matter of benefit to society.
The categorization is something that's defined by the State--and there's a problem. I'm sure that there are many who think that pedophiles should be expunged from the population by any means possible.. Would the attacker of a person whom he believes to be a pedophile be convicted of a hate crime with the current legislation?
This "hate crime" business is very boggy ground, it seems to me.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4842865/Nationa...
"National Organization for Marriage
The lies just keep coming from NOM
This release contains three videos:
NOM - A Gathering Storm - The official infomercial seen at nationformarriage.com
NOM - auditions part 1 - Auditions from the making of the informercial.
NOM - auditions part 2 - Auditions from the making of the informercial."
silly me, i thought that the constitution (as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS) applied to everyone equally, but see, i was disabused of that notion in my current conlaw class.
already anyone who believes in god in this country has more "special rights" that anyone else, if we're talking constitutional protections. this is yet another case of projection on their part. i'll give you some examples.
don't want to take a picture for your driver's license? tell the DMV you believe that pics are graven images and voila - no picture for you! (this is for real - a lady in OK used that excuse) want to be a conscientous objector? if you're religious, no problem! if you're not religious, well, you have to jump through a bajillion hoops to attain CO status. want to pull your children from public school after the 8th grade? hey, it's no problem as long as you're religious! you don't have to send your kids to those pesky schools until they're 16 like everyone else.
those are just a few examples, and don't EVEN get me started on the establishment clause v exercise clause debate, because again in almost every single case the religious folks win out over the so-called wall of separation.
Have you been following the case of Angie Zapata out of Greeley, CO (formerly Marilyn Musgrave country, and still a pretty politically conservative meat-packing town on the CO plains). Angie was a transgender female who was biologically male. She was bludgeoned to death by her boyfirend when he found out she was biologically male after they had previously been intimate. The state is using the boyfriends' oft stated homophobia as motive to prove first degree murder, while conversely, the defense is using the same evidence to prove that he "snapped" as a defense to the mental state to prove first degree murder. The jury is deliberating.
So, does homophobia give you a limited right to kill in rural CO? We'll find out in a few hours.
Denver Post and just about every other Denver media outlet is covering this story pretty closely if you want to track through the trial over the last couple of weeks.
Andrade convicted of first degree murder and bias-crime.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12200706
No license to kill in rural Colorado.
These people have always frighten me. They are truly insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq9bDs9_RcY
By claiming that certain doctors were "killing babies," they incited people who went to clinics and killed people. However, the religious "leaders" then claimed that none of the blood was on their hands -- just that the murderer was "deranged."
What they fail to note, in fact, was that they were giving permission to murder. If someone was, in fact, in the process of killing actual babies -- and not clumps of cells -- you would be justified in killing them to save the babies. This is the theory that the murderers were acting on.
The preachers deliberately confuse clumps of cells and "babies" to inflame the passions of their listeners.
And, it's the same with the anti-gay rhetoric. All of the stuff coming out of the right wing religions is so over the top, we laugh at it and mock it, but there are disturbed people who take it for real. The gathering storm bullshit is obvious to us -- but there are people who aren't wired too tightly and who think gays are a real threat to their families, their children, and their marriage.
This sort of fear mongering is deliberate and the people who spew it should be held accountable. They know what they are doing.
Your comment won't show up until you register with Disqus.com and verify your email address. We have been approving individual comments in an effort to help, pending your email verification. And while most have completed the verification, a few of you haven't. In the future, your comments will not appear on the blog until you verify your email. If you dont know how to verify your email, or are having other problems with the comments, please post a message to one of our moderators, or to John, and we can get it fixed.
Thanks, John and the Moderators.