Not A Hate Crime?

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

The problem with just enforcing the laws on the books is that it doesn't encompass the whole crime.  The cops in the article are right.  It's just vandalism.  But you and I know that the meaning of the crime is worse than, say, if it were a prankster kid, and it is potentially much worse if the vandals come back and escalate even further.

It also can't be stressed enough:  the hate crime designation exists to diagnose the motivation of the perp, not to protect specific groups. It's a really fine distinction, but a crucial one. If the perp is motivated to commit his/her crime because of a bias towards a specific group, rather than an individual, then voila, there's your hate crime.  It does NOT mean that any crime against gays is automatically a hate crime because they are a protected group. So what that means is that, yes, Maude, us poor downtrodden straight white religious men can be targets of hate crimes, too, and we can be targeted by gay muslim women from American Samoa.  There is a popular perception that the hate crime designation protect minorities only, and that's simply not true.  It protects everyone.

You make some good points, but I disagree that hate crime laws do not exist to protect specific groups. Indeed that is their whole reason for being. The motivation is the determining factor in designating a hate crime, but the laws are there to protect and deter.

Unfortunately even though hate crimes can happen to anyone, only certain groups are protected in Oklahoma, so just make sure you're not gay or a woman.

[OkieDiva]

Anyone read this yet?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790>1=43002

Frightening and fascinating story involving two very messed up children. I believe very strongly in the notion of hate crimes and support stronger punishment for bad guys who target individuals specifically because they belong to a particular class - be it religious, ethnic, sexual or what-have-you. That said, I wonder whether this was a hate crime, a crime of passion, a killing to silence a blackmailer or a killing to stop sexual harrassment.

[BriefRighter]

Hate crime legislation must include gays and lesbians.  It is important to stop crimes such as the murder of Matthew Shepard.  It is not who we "present ourselves to be."  We are who we are.

I am an attorney who practices in both Texas and Oklahoma.  I worked tirelessly to stop the Constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage.

The hatred that is apparent from Oklahoma is the reason why I fight.

By the way, My Husband and I love our live here in Dallas.  And we are raising our child, together.

[sgrizzle]

I have problem with the term "hate crime" because it only "exists" so to speak if you hate a group that is on a certain list. Sure, we can add Gay, Lesbian, Transvestite, Transexual, Bisexual and whatever else but we will still be saying "go ahead and pick another group and burn their houses down" because they aren't as important.

Classify hate crimes as something like this "acts of vandalism or terrorism perpetrated against a group of persons whose motive is hatred of a shared trait amongst the victims" Because as far as I'm concerned, if you are excluding groups from being "protected" like this, it seems silly to include any of them

[JoeMommaBlake]

+100,000,000

well said, sgrizzle.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I have problem with the term "hate crime" because it only "exists" so to speak if you hate a group that is on a certain list. Sure, we can add Gay, Lesbian, Transvestite, Transexual, Bisexual and whatever else but we will still be saying "go ahead and pick another group and burn their houses down" because they aren't as important.

Classify hate crimes as something like this "acts of vandalism or terrorism perpetrated against a group of persons whose motive is hatred of a shared trait amongst the victims" Because as far as I'm concerned, if you are excluding groups from being "protected" like this, it seems silly to include any of them

That's what I was trying to clarify.  Hate crimes are crimes against a characteristic, but not a certain type of characteristic.  A hate crime, in other words, is a crime perpetrated because of someone's race, but not because of a specific race.  Similarly, a hate crime is a crime perpetrated because of someone's religion, but not because of a specific religion.

My point is, azbadpuppy has it wrong. "GLBT" would not be what's added to the hate crimes statutes.  "Sexual orientation" would.  And that would protect straight people from crimes perpetrated on them because of their orientation.  Similarly, hate crimes can be perpetrated on whites because of their race as well.  

Point being, it also protects you, Sgrizz and Rwarn, from crimes done to you because of your race, religion, etc.

[cannon_fodder]

Well said Sgrizzle.  

If the crime is meant to be a "message" to a group of people, I can see a greater degree of criminality and justification for more punishment. It's akin to an act of terrorism towards that group, in the classical "I want you to be scared" sense of the word.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I'm against all hate crime laws. There is no need for that. A crime is a crime and is covered under current laws. No crime is one of love, all crimes are hate. A criminal does not break into a house and steal that persons belongings out of love. A vandal does not do his deed because he's kind hearted and cares, he does it to be mean. -or so it seems to me.

Not to say anything about your opinion on hate crime laws, but not all crimes are hate crimes. A person that breaks into a house and steals may not do it with any feelings towards the person who owns the things, love or hate, they are just there to steal. Perhaps they feel they need to steal something to get drug money. Your house was "picked" not because of you, but because the house looked like one they could steal from. They may have no feelings or intents specifically towards you, what so ever. They arent going out stealing with the intent to hurt someone. They could do any number of things to do that. They are going out to steal, in order to steal, not to hurt people. Though hurting people is exactly what they are doing.

I dont think a burglar knows and hates every person they steal from. If they didnt know where a friend happened to live, they may inadvertantly steal from that friend. Its not about hate, its about stealing.

If a group of teens goes out and vandalizes some cars, they may not know a thing about who owns those cars. Or be doing it because they hate those people. They may not even know who or what kind of people own those cars. They may be mean and hateful kids, but it seems to be to be qualitatively different when someone or a group of people are specifically targeting someone. They are focused on you and will do whatever they can to hurt you. Are looking for ways to hurt you. Knowing that is different than being the victim of a "random act of violence or crime".

OK- but it has to be remembered that a person who breaks into a house has to know that he is making the home owner very unhappy and the residents will have the feeling of being "invaded" for some time to come. The same goes for stealing a car, the person lost a item of great expense and also lost his/her means of transportation and they could lose their job if they have no transportation.

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy



Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.

Um, as a straight white male, gays are allowed EXACTLY the same protections as me.   I think what you mean to say is that they are not "extra" protected by some funny legislation that deems it to be a worse crime for offending them.  

I could care less that they may or may not have chosen their current sexual preference.  Why should someone's sexual preference garner them any special treatment?   Why should the police work harder when investigating gay crime than straight crime?   I think that crime is crime, and that should be it.   I hope whoever did it gets caught, just like if they did it to me.   Having two sets of punishments is about as stupid and bigoted as you can get.

[cannon_fodder]

Tee, read the above justifications.  If the crime is about intimidating a group of people it warrants more investigation.  It is more likely the effects will be greater than an individual crime AND it is more likely that the crime will escalate.

This would be true for gay people, or a white family that moved into a predominantly black neighborhood if they were to face crimes of intimidation.  

As the law is currently setup, the consensus appears to be that it needs improvement.  The "magic list" approach is foolish IMHO.

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Tee, read the above justifications.  If the crime is about intimidating a group of people it warrants more investigation.  It is more likely the effects will be greater than an individual crime AND it is more likely that the crime will escalate.

This would be true for gay people, or a white family that moved into a predominantly black neighborhood if they were to face crimes of intimidation.  

As the law is currently setup, the consensus appears to be that it needs improvement.  The "magic list" approach is foolish IMHO.

We have laws to keep everyone on an even playing field.   There is no need for further legislation.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06bills/HB/HB2615_ENR.RTF

I can't think of a better reason to have a reasonable fear than the perpetrator had already  threatened, and destroyed the property of you and your family.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy



Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.

Um, as a straight white male, gays are allowed EXACTLY the same protections as me.   I think what you mean to say is that they are not "extra" protected by some funny legislation that deems it to be a worse crime for offending them.  

I could care less that they may or may not have chosen their current sexual preference.  Why should someone's sexual preference garner them any special treatment?   Why should the police work harder when investigating gay crime than straight crime?   I think that crime is crime, and that should be it.   I hope whoever did it gets caught, just like if they did it to me.   Having two sets of punishments is about as stupid and bigoted as you can get.

Exactly. I'm against giving gays speical rights over anyone else- And I'm against giving gays extra/speical rights in the work force. That would be very unfair, as in example if two people at a company are up for a promotion, a straight guy and a gay guy both with equal skills and the boss gave the promotion to a 3rd party, the gay guy could sue claiming the boss picked the 3rd person over him because the boss does not like gays. The straight guy would be out of luck he would have no recourse he would not be able to sue on any grounds. Letting a gay person sue just because of his lifestyle is totally wrong.

[cannon_fodder]

1) The manner in which I phrased it gave no one group "special treatment."  If gave credit concern to a crime committed with the intent of intimidating a group.  Black, white, Hispanic, gay or straight.  

2) Since we are on to employment law, lets address that for a moment.  The proposed legislation around the nation would prohibit "you're fired because your gay" or "we don't hire your kind here."  It does not go so far as enabling preferential treatment.

A step further, does that mean you are against legislation protecting employment on racial grounds?  Ie. forbidding employers from firing all colored people is bad because it could lead to the scenario you set up?  Thus, we should allow employers to fire black people for being black.

I'm playing devils advocate here, but your argument is flawed.  I don't think laws protecting homosexuals need to be crafted, I think our current laws need to be better drafted to protect groups of people being discriminated against instead of only certain sanctified groups.  Selecting groups is counter productive ("so and so only got the job because he's black/Indian/whatever") in many ways and often racist (racist: discrimination based on race.  Thus, hiring a black person because he is black would be discriminatory to other applicants).

Bah.  Laws can try to change public sentiment by they usually fail.  If you hate homosexuals you will no matter what the law says about it.  But I think intimidation is a greater crime than mere vandalism.

[PonderInc]

I think the distinction is that if someone vandalizes your house/car/yard/whatever...you can just shrug it off as some random act of ugliness.  Some drunk person or gang initiation or whatever randomly landed on your property...and probably won't return.  It's not about YOU.  It's frustrating, but you don't have to lose sleep over it.

A hate crime, on the other hand, is specifically targeted to YOU as a person.  It's not just random chance, it's a personal attack on YOU.  In a hate crime, vandalism of your home/car/yard/whatever is an attack on you by proxy.  And you DO have to lose sleep over it, because you have been specifically targeted.  And b/c it's often a precursor to more (and possibly escalated) attacks to come.

It's more serious and more scarring than simple damage to your stuff.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I think the distinction is that if someone vandalizes your house/car/yard/whatever...you can just shrug it off as some random act of ugliness.  Some drunk person or gang initiation or whatever randomly landed on your property...and probably won't return.  It's not about YOU.  It's frustrating, but you don't have to lose sleep over it.

A hate crime, on the other hand, is specifically targeted to YOU as a person.  It's not just random chance, it's a personal attack on YOU.  In a hate crime, vandalism of your home/car/yard/whatever is an attack on you by proxy.  And you DO have to lose sleep over it, because you have been specifically targeted.  And b/c it's often a precursor to more (and possibly escalated) attacks to come.

It's more serious and more scarring than simple damage to your stuff.

- What you just said will also cover gang revenge attacks and gang driveby shootings, the gangs target someone but don't really hate that person it's just to "send a message" or to get even for something that person did to them.  Street Gangs also target people with threats  so  they won't show up in court, or so they won't "snitch" on something they saw to police. Crimes like that then are not exactly hate crimes and not exactly a random act since a certain house or person is the target. That must fall into a gray area. Thses crimes are not "hate crimes" in a legal sense.[xx(][B)]