Hate Crimes

[Lynden1000]

The gay panic defense led to an acquittal in a murder case in West Virginia, according to a story in a 1993 Barnes & Noble book Some Days Nothing Goes Right.

Numerous Internet sources, including Wikipedia and Answers.com, report the same passage. "The Sun-Times Wire reported in Harrisville, West Virginia, USA, that one Dean Ludwig Bethoven, aged thirty, accepted a ride home from a bar by funeral director Dent Pickman, and fell asleep in his car.

"When he woke up later at Pickman's house, he found his body covered with 'ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, pickles - things out of the refrigerator,' and Dent Pickman licking mayonnaise off his naked body. 'I went crazy,' said Bethoven, who stabbed Pickman to death with a kitchen knife. The jury acquitted him of murder."

It seems fair to me that he was aquitted of murder, but I don't know why they needed to bring "gay panic" into it. If his story was legit, it seems like a clear cut case of self-defense, since he was protecting himself from a sexual assault.

 

[gengwall]

That brings us back to the point of the OP:

Do you have a problem with murder when it is
a) thought out and planned: 1st degree
b) done unplanned out of a temporary rage: 2nd degree
c) done without the intent to kill: Manslaughter

All result in the same crime (murder), yet they are punished differently by their motivation: thought and intent.

Isn't this the same as "thought crime"?
Aren't we going down a slippery slope?

Why differentiate between terrorist, and murder/destruction of property? Don't all crimes create terror?

Hmmm. I still believe that the primary determining factors are related to action, not thought. But that is just my interpretation. I do admit that "motive" and "intent" are thought parameters.

All crimes have elements that in and of themselves are not a crime. It is the combination of these elements that constitute the crime. We as a free society, through our elected representative, enact laws that reflect the values of the people. Committing a crime of violence against anyone is bad. Committing the same crime against someone because of there ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - is seen by the community at large as being even more reprehensible.

Such acts create a greater fear within the sub-community of being targeting for such violence for no other reason than their status. As a community at large, we've decided such acts have an additional adverse impact on us all, and therefore warrant additional punishment.

These crimes are not charged often, and require very specific criteria. If you're worried about any slippery slopes, look elsewhere.

Your points are well taken. But, is there a way to ensure that hate crimes are not discriminating against only certain haters or hatees? That is the slippery slope that worries me the most. Will it be just as much a hate crime for a white supremist to kill a gay man because of his sexual orientation as it is for a gay man to kill a priest because of his religious proclamations about homosexuality? (I am not calling a priest a white supremist, BTW ). Or maybe you can think of a closer parallel. In other words, we understand gays as hatees, but does that somehow exempt them from being "hate crime" haters? I believe this is a legitimate concern.

And all smart arguments aside, the moniker is still a little frightening. It still associates "crime" with thought. I understand the concept that it is just a modifier and don't disagree, but that gives me little comfort when thinking about those in power who might not be astute enough to recognize it as such.

 

[tcampen]

Your points are well taken. But, is there a way to ensure that hate crimes are not discriminating against only certain haters or hatees? That is the slippery slope that worries me the most. Will it be just as much a hate crime for a white supremist to kill a gay man because of his sexual orientation as it is for a gay man to kill a priest because of his religious proclamations about homosexuality? (I am not calling a priest a white supremist, BTW ).

I've seen violence by a minority on a white male because of his being white charged as a hate crime. Hate crimes are not based on any particular race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It is premised on the crime being based on such, even when the target victim is a member of the majority.

Or maybe you can think of a closer parallel. In other words, we understand gays as hatees, but does that somehow exempt them from being "hate crime" haters? I believe this is a legitimate concern.

If a gay man kills a priest because he hates Catholics, or a straight man because he has it in for heterosexuals, then that would be just as much a hate crime as Fred Phelps killing a gay man. There is no special protection for homosexuals that exceeds that for heterosexuals in the law. Both are protected equally by the same law, which is why I don't see any concern or slippery slope.

And all smart arguments aside, the moniker is still a little frightening. It still associates "crime" with thought. I understand the concept that it is just a modifier and don't disagree, but that gives me little comfort when thinking about those in power who might not be astute enough to recognize it as such.

I understand this concern, and perhaps there could be a better name for such crimes. But all crimes require a certain mental state and intent which means we have to figure out what was in the defendant's head at the time of the crime. I think if you were to examine the jury instructions for these types of crimes, your concerns would be greatly reduced in this regard. But, again, I can't disagree with you that the term "hate crime" is an inarticulate name for these types of offenses.

 

[gengwall]

I've seen violence by a minority on a white male because of his being white charged as a hate crime. Hate crimes are not based on any particular race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It is premised on the crime being based on such, even when the target victim is a member of the majority.



If a gay man kills a priest because he hates Catholics, or a straight man because he has it in for heterosexuals, then that would be just as much a hate crime as Fred Phelps killing a gay man. There is no special protection for homosexuals that exceeds that for heterosexuals in the law. Both are protected equally by the same law, which is why I don't see any concern or slippery slope.



I understand this concern, and perhaps there could be a better name for such crimes. But all crimes require a certain mental state and intent which means we have to figure out what was in the defendant's head at the time of the crime. I think if you were to examine the jury instructions for these types of crimes, your concerns would be greatly reduced in this regard. But, again, I can't disagree with you that the term "hate crime" is an inarticulate name for these types of offenses.

Fair enough, and your observations are encouraging. But I think I will retain a certain amount of scepticism at least for the time being.

 

[Mling]

Fair enough, and your observations are encouraging. But I think I will retain a certain amount of scepticism at least for the time being.

I do understand the concern. Poking through statistics, I have seen recorded cases of anti-heterosexual hate crimes. Along with anti-protestant, anti-catholic, anti-atheist (not many), anti-white.

I can't speak for how often anti-majority or anti-"status that is usually not hated" hate crimes are prosecuted as such, compared with how often they actually occur, but there is certainly precedent.

 

[plmarquette]

Intent is not a crime... acting upon intent and doing harm is ...

some folks hate the whites, who hate the blacks, who hate the klan, most of us hate anything we don't understand ... Kris Kristopherson...

the liberal media and naysayers are spinning some thing like this as "hate crimes" , which most of the nation is opposed to, which is more of " I can't do my own thing or I want others to be forced to let me do my own thing regardless of who it offends, scenario"

hello, mr. employer , john Q. citizen
I am a rapist who desires employment at a pregnancy crisis center

I am an atheist who desires to work at a church facility

I am a child molester who seeks employment at a day care center

I am a moslem who desires to be a chaplain at a christian facility

I am a klansman who seeks to teach in inner city schools

I am lesbian, bi, transexual, gay and wish to teach, instruct , and oversee heterosexual children , clubs, associations

I am a moslem, hindu, frenchman, first, american second ... I would defend my national origin first and this nation second...

I am a crook and a sexual predator, but you elected me...

Perhaps the miltary has a good suggestion

The military has a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy, and many people are doing just what I have listed and no one knows their "agenda-orientation-beliefs" and all appears well, for awhile until a mistake or the truth is brought to light

The Hate Crime, regardless of what position you take is the "attitude and activity" of the persons in question...
The problem arises when some one is 1-2" away from your face and says " you have to ..."; I am opposed to , disagree with , seek to pull you down but there is nothing you can do about it, for it is the norm or the law
which is the root of most of this type of discussion , here in ...

Hate means contrary to what is socially and politically correct ... i.e. our faith , our heritage, our constitution, our founding fathers, our light in a world of darkness.. that we the founding americans should change our beliefs to fit in with those who have imigrated here in the last 100 years , rather than the imigrants entering the same melting pot of the nation & becoming americans first and immigrants second ...