US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Faeelin]

If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.

Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.

I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?

[Strix]

You were right until you got to Berkut.

The fact is, even if they don't go out with a plan in mind to target a specific minority, they essentially go out to target some minority. This means straight white men are usually safe.

That is where you are wrong. The majority of crime is committed against the majority. It just doesn't get a lot of press because it isn't sexy enough. "GAY MAN BEATEN OUTSIDE BAR" sells more paper than someone beat up in a bar parking lot. Your paranoia makes it hard for you to accept what I am saying. That's understandable. 

[Malthus]

I think the way it should be done, to be fair, is to make it a "hate crime" to attack someone because of their innate, "passive" characteristic. This is how it is done, for example, in Polish law, and the "protected groups" (gender, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, race, ethnicity, or disability) are only mentioned as examples.

Oh, I totally agree. 

It seems to me that this is happening, as it were, incrementally; as various groups get the political clout to be added to the "list". This a result of the way it has historically evolved here.

[Martinus]

but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males.

Why not? It would be a hate crime under Polish law.

Remember, for something to be a hate crime, the identity of the victim is secondary to the motivation of the attacker. If the attacker is motivated by the fact that the victim is of a specific ethnicity, race, gender and/or sexual orientation, then someone targeting a victim because he is a white straight male (of course the prosecution would need to prove that motivation, but that's how it always goes) would be guilty of a hate crime.

[Martinus]

If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.

Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.

I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?

Indeed. We have crimes of passion. "Mercy killings". Etc. All carrying different penalties because we value different motivations differently.

[Jaron]

I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?

Yes, yes it does. It creates and feeds into the "them vs us" mentality that leads to more hate. You can create a hate crime list that covers every group but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males. As a result, it's one more law that pisses off white males and contributes to their not accepting the minority in question.

The problem is that minorities drink the politician's kool-aid. They believe that the politicians care and that the legislation helps them. In reality, it sets back relations between the majority and minority.

No, just no. A hundred times over, NO.

Your argument is that racially motivated crimes do not occur, and it is in the best interests of minorities - colored or gay or otherwise, to just suck it up and look the other way because it supposedly hurts relations between majority and minority?

I don't know of ANYONE who would say "I'd like to be your friend, gay Martin, but those hate crime laws...they piss me off, so..no"

As usual, you are delusional. You know absolutely nothing about minorities, except that you clearly have a disdain for them and that they should dare speak up and ask for protection.

As a friendly reminder Strix, don't forget that "they" are growing faster than "us" and pretty soon its going to be YOU on that minority list.

Maybe you shouldn't think of hate crime/minority protection as anyone less than an investment in your future.

[Capetan Mihali]

  Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them.  Of course...

And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands.  Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.

So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.

  I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond to this without being a prick.  What have you been watching lately?

I think in your line of work you would have realized that people tend to commit crimes for some kind of reason, not just randomly.  Why do you deny the existence as homophobia as a motive for crime?

If you do any cursory research you will find ample evidence of people doing exactly what you make seem absurd: literally sitting around, planning to attack gay individuals on the exclusive basis of their being gay.

Here's one you may remember, from Paul Broussard's murder:

Three youths from The Woodlands pleaded guilty Monday in the killing of a banker that occurred after they, along with seven companions, drove to Houston's Montrose area to "beat up some queers."....

By the time the group had assembled in a McDonald's parking lot, they were "amped up," Buice indicated. They made a unanimous decision to drive south to Montrose and "go beat up some queers." Some of them even filled their pockets with "queer rocks," which were ordinary stones meant to be thrown at men in the area known for its gay nightspots. 

[Malthus]

If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.

Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.

I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?

Because it is so much more specific. Generally, under the law the mens rea is merely the will to commit the crime at issue; for example we normally don't care as much why you chose to kill, only whether it was premeditated. The exceptions have always been difficult (for example the partial defence of "provocation" which in Canada reduces murder to manslaughter).

Though motive can in some cases figure in the sentencing it is true. However, this is more in the realm of judicial discretion than statute (at least, up here).

[Martinus]

Reading Strix/Hans posts, it's either that they are deeply misinformed about how hate crimes legislation in America works or that it is indeed, as they say, deeply fucked up.

When it comes to race, how is the hate crime legislation worded?

Is it a harsher penalty for targeting a victim "because he or she is black" or "because of his or her race"?

[DisturbedPervert]

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them.

I really don't think this is true.  Some people hate to begin with, and then go looking for a target they hate, whether it is based on skin color, religion, or sexual orientation.  Even happens to white people, thousands of white South African farmers have been murdered in the past 15 years, often brutally and with no possession taken.

[Jaron]

Its raining Mens Rea!

[Hansmeister]

Hate crime laws are not about white on black violence. If a white man robs a store and shoots the black clerk before fleeing, that is not a hate crime and should not be treated as one.

If a black man kills a white man for racially motivated reasons, I'd have no qualms about extra time being added on.

Let's make it fair, but lets make it very clear that in our society we won't tolerate these types of crimes.

In a sense, we already have such laws. Doesn't killing a policeman usually carry a tougher penalty than killing any random civilian? Isn't that also a violation of this equal rights idea?

We already have laws that demonstrate that we don't tolerate murder, so why do we need laws that say "but we especially don't like it if you kill certain especially protected categories of people?"

An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.

[Capetan Mihali]

An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.

Killing a police officer is a higher category of murder under NY State law at the very least.

[Faeelin]

We already have laws that demonstrate that we don't tolerate murder, so why do we need laws that say "but we especially don't like it if you kill certain especially protected categories of people?"

Hate crime laws are actually more commonly used for non-fatal assaults.

[Hansmeister]

People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them.

I really don't think this is true.  Some people hate to begin with, and then go looking for a target they hate, whether it is based on skin color, religion, or sexual orientation.  Even happens to white people, thousands of white South African farmers have been murdered in the past 15 years, often brutally and with no possession taken.

You don't have to go to South Africa for that.  Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime.  Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House).  Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.