7716. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:21 AM PDT
Great Frank Rich op-ed in today's NYT here nytimesdoc INTERNET which shows clearly the evil and growing influence of Gary Bauer and the "Christian" Right on the GOP.
As Matthew Shepherd lay dying in Laramie the Family Research Council was co-hosting a press conference...the latest salvo in a 6-month campaign by the religious right, with the tacit, even explicit, approval of Rrepublican leaders, to demonize gay people for political gain in this election year.
This particular press conference was to announce a new barrage of ads...in which alleged homosexuals who have "changed" implore others to do likewise "through the power of Jesus Christ." The commercials, gooey in style, end with a slogan: "It's not about hate..It's about hope."
But it's really about stirring up the fear that produces hate. If these ads were truly aimed at gay people, they wouldn't be broadcast at extravagant cost to the wide general audience reached by TV, and they wouldn't be trumpeted in Washington, insuring free national exposure, three weeks before E.ection day. The ads themselves, despite the sugar-coating of "hope," ooze malice. In one of them, homosexuality is linked to drug addiciton and certain death by AIDS; all of them implicitly posit that homosexuality is itself a disease in need of a cure.
Matthew Shepard has now been "cured."
The head of the Family Research Counsel is Gary Bauer, a GOP power broker and putative Pres. candidate, who disingenuously goes on talk shows to say that his organization hates no one and deplores violence. But if you wage a well-financed media air war in which people with an innate difference in sexual orientation are ceaselessly branded as sinful and diseased and un-American seekers of "special rights," ground war will follow. It's a story as old as history. Once any group is successfully scapegoa
7717. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:24 AM PDT
[Rich cont'd] Successfully scaptgoated as a subhuman threat to "normal" values by a propaganda machine, emboldened thugs take over.
Rational and tolerant intelligencia of The Fray unite!
7718. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:27 AM PDT
Well R.I.P.-ing "Religion" is a first step.
7719. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:32 AM PDT
Wonkers
Rich is much that he decries. The movement is absurd, but certainly in keeping with the beliefs of its proponents. The death of Matthew Shepard was a senseless tragedy. Rich's attempt to link the silliness of the "Cure Homosexuality" crowd with Shepard's death is on par with what he purports to denounce.
The Family Research Council is vulnerable to unmasking on the weakness of their premise. As far as I know, however, they do not call for the murder of homosexuals at the hands of soulless thugs.
7720. justlooking - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:40 AM PDT
109109
No they don't tell people to go out and beat up or kill gays. But they do campaign against civil rights for gays on the grounds that they could change if they wanted to. I think that it's irrelevant what gays "could" do; they should have the same freedom from persecution and criminal activity that the rest of us theoretically have. I think that people have a right to gay whether they "have" to be or they "want" to be. Who are we to judge?
7721. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:41 AM PDT
"Where's the Outrage?"
Untrue.
Do a little research on the Xtian Coalition sometime. You'll see there are various, interconnecting, factions within the organization. And they support each other both ideologically and with money and other resources. For example, FRC actively supports Operation Rescue and the more militant Lambs of God. They, in turn, have been financially linked to the Army of God who are suspects in several clinic bombings. Additionally, an FRC board member was convicted of gunning down a doctor and several other people.
This is the fundamental reason why the Xtian Coalition fought so hard against the application of RICO statutes in these cases.
7722. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:41 AM PDT
It's not "called," 109. It's whispered. Why are these organizations spending so much time and money -- tons of money -- to defeat any effort at granting gays and lesbians the minimal protections allowed for other minorities?
Anyway this is a bit far afield from the Big He who, it appears, has dodged a bullet once again. "Chatterbox" has proclaimed itself "bored" with Flytrap. And we know what that means: slow curtain, the end.
7723. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:48 AM PDT
I will take each in turn
just
If opposition to a group - homosexuals, the GOP, prostitutes (was that redundant for many of you?), survivalists (g), etc . . . - gets you linked to the murder of a member by the witty Frank Rich, I think he is engaging in demagoguery. As to who judges, that is irrelevant. Those who have to make that call will. And, from what I know of the call, it doesn't appear to be that difficult to resist the "cure."
Jade
So what?
Cllrdr
I agree. The Christian Coalition is unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality. I simply don't see how hanging Shepard on them factors in.
7724. wonkers2 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:58 AM PDT
109109, If your read Rich's op-ed you will see that he did not say that the Family Research Counsel is calling for the murder of gays. His argument is that the FRC's propagands inflames the ignorant morons who commit attrocities against gays and abortion clinic workers. Bauer and company, in my estimation, are much worse that the idiots who commit the hate crimes. There was a very illuminating article by Andrew Sullivan (not usually one of my favorites) on recent changes in the Republican Party orchestrated by the likes of Bill Kristol and Gary Bauer. Kristol is playing with fire and eventually will be burned, in my opinion.
7725. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:59 AM PDT
109
I think when you have an organized campaign to "dehumanize" a group, say gypsies, the disabled, or jews, for example, it makes it that much easier to takes steps toward a final solution. If you imply that gays have it within their power to become straight, then any who don't do so have evidently sewn the seeds of their own destruction.
7726. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:01 AM PDT
It's called "bringing the chickens home to roost," 109. They have a lot of explaining to do. Will they? More important, will the (cowed, cowardly, bought and sold a million times over) press ask them?
7727. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:09 AM PDT
wonkers, bubber
I know his argument. It is specious. Thugs are thugs, and it is more than a stretch to believe that the two (maybe four) killers would have refrained from killing some other undesirable. There are blacks, and noisy neighbors, and mouthy clerks, even in Wyoming. As for your part about the GOP, I agree. By pandering to fundamentalist philosophy in off-years, they will (I hope) alienate the more inclusive segments of our society, to their electoral detriment.
cllrdr
The press will not press. It is not in their economic interest to unmask one of its three ring circuses.
7733. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:37 AM PDT
Niner,
Head in the sand again. Damn I didn't realize such a hard bitten cynic could be so Pollyannaish at the same time.
Of course the Cure Homos Crowd has Mr. Shepard's blood on its hands.
You don't go about curing people unless they are sick. With each commercial, each Falwell bombast, each "I love the sinner and hate the sin" remark comes the message, "Faggots are sick"
Let's go roll one this weekend eh?
7734. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:39 AM PDT
Why do you guys practice what you protest?
7735. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:41 AM PDT
Jexster
What I like most about you is that you never, ever waste my time.
7736. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:41 AM PDT
What on earth are you talking about, max? Do I go around nailing Vic Kuligins to fence posts and bashing their brains in?
7737. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:41 AM PDT
And, you are a Cardinal.
7738. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:45 AM PDT
Yes indeed Niner, one of those Thomas Curran heretics.
Besides I am Episcopalian.
7739. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:47 AM PDT
Now, now Cllrdr, Vic is in a homosexsual panic. We must love the sinner while we hate the sin, then send one of our vicious gay gangs to off the MF
7740. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:53 AM PDT
cllrdr. 7736:
Well, of course not. However, I see gays here dehumanizing christians and the GOP, then committing acts, or in the context of a forum, comments that would be denounced as bigotry, were they to be addressed to gays. It seems that intolerance in not acceptable except in the aforementioned groups. I would have expected gays, given their history and experience to be more reluctant to engage in that sort of thing.
My experience is limited, but it would seem that when "Beavis and Butthead" baited, assaulted, robbed, tortured and murdered that poor gay young man, they were purpetrating the same sort of atrocity that thugs have committed since time immemorial to those subject to prejudice and consitered fit for victimization.
7741. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:55 AM PDT
If Vic's cute, which I somehow doubt, maybe the Nellie Gang can have their way with him!
Now back to topic, WP reports that Henry's trying to rein in the Hyenas by dropping more charges. Perjury's out and now they want to drop obstruction.
7742. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:56 AM PDT
If they "love the sinner while hating the sin," why do so many of them carry signs reading "God hates fags?"
7743. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:59 AM PDT
max -- When cartoon characters become three-dimensional I'll start to worry.
Wait a minute -- Booba is three-dimensional!
7744. Ronski - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:00 AM PDT
There is no question that the anti-gay rhetoric of groups like the Christian Coalition enflames public opinion about gays, and that this leads, ultimately, to acts of hatred like the Wyoming killing.
Thugs are thugs, but the depravity of this act, like the dragging of the black man to his death in Texas, indicates the kind of rage that accompanies hate crimes. Most criminologists will tell you that.
Whether hate crime legislation does any good is open to question. But it is beyond reason that anyone could seriously question the fact that anti-gay fundamentalist forces want gay people treated like sub-humans.They do. They condemn violence, but refuse to see the obvious link between their rhetoric and the deeds of the nazis who act on that rhetoric.
7745. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
Because, charlie, God does hate fags, as we all know.
Now can we get back to topic?
Tom Delay is brain dead.
What do y'all think about that?
7746. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:02 AM PDT
max: there is a big difference between disliking someone for an irrelevant physical or behavioral trait, and disliking someone who wants to deny you rights because you have that trait. Saying that someone is bigoted if they can't stand the KKK removes any real meaning from the word "bigot".
7747. Ronski - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:03 AM PDT
Was there ever any doubt about his brain waves?
7748. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:03 AM PDT
cllrdr. 7743:
So, by attempting to trivialize me, you evade an honest response and continue the process to which I referred. How sad.
7751. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:05 AM PDT
Ronski
I don't necessarily disagree. A climate or culture of marginalization will increase violence. But that must be reconciled with "thugs are thugs." Would the poor kid had lived if he had been lured out, but he was not gay? Who knows?
But to hang the death of an individual on differing, even extremist social and political mores seems extreme itself.
As for hate crime legislation, what murder is not a hate crime. It is a sop, a tag on, and ultimately, given the twisted manner of sociopaths, ineffectual.
7752. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:05 AM PDT
Ronski;
Excellent post.
The question then is, how can we condone a political party (the Repugs) that is closely aligned with groups that advocate the dehumanization of a segment of American society?
7753. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:09 AM PDT
109
You have lost me. Was there another reason the murderers chose Shepard other than the fact that he was gay? Are you arguing they would have murdered anyone that night?
How do you disentangle the "thug" from the "rhetoric" that inspires him?
7754. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:11 AM PDT
Rask
But, be fair. The political trumpeting of "bigotry" and "racist" (hell, it even occurs when Spike Lee doesn't get nominated) contributes to this problem. And the proff is in the pudding. These threads are loaded with accusations of bigotry or some ism, and no one bats an eye, because the power of the charge is so diminished.
And when folks tie a sick death to a larger political aim, I think it contributes. He was murdered. I don't care why, because it is all too common an occurrence. I only care to see his murderers put to death.
7757. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:14 AM PDT
MsIt
Based on preliminary reports, they lured him out to rob him, and then they killed him. One of the girls states that they yelled epithets at him as they beat him.
I do not know if they would have murdered any one that night. But killers kill.
As for separating thug from rhetoric, I don't care what a man calls me as he bashes my brain in and takes my money. Just make sure you catch him and kill him.
7758. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:18 AM PDT
JaDeLaGoLd. 7752:
One might begin by recognizing that even they have a right to their views. Perhaps the true test of one's principles might lie not in what one does for one's friends, but in what one does, or allows others to do to those one perceives as one's enemies.
Raskolnikov. 7746:
True, but you construct a deliberatly exaggerated example. Perhaps outrages like the aforementioned murder really have little to do with hate and much more to do with the kind of person that just gets off on hurting those perceived to be weaker than themselves. The predatory abuse of physical power, rather than hate.
7759. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:20 AM PDT
Niner, the problem in the past has been that whites were seldom prosecuted for killing blacks, and all the gay-bashers had to do was say, "Your Honor, that faggot made a pass at me and I killed him for it," and most times would walk out of the courtroom free as birds. The hate-crime statutes are an attempt to make sure there are specific guidelines in place that say, "Look, asshole, if the guy really *did* make a pass at you (and there's almost never any evidence of that), the correct response is to say 'No," not to beat they guy to death."
7760. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:21 AM PDT
"Where's the Outrage?"
Oh, I see now.
It was a robbery. And the two robbers were so fearful of Shepard's 105 lb. physique that they felt compelled, for their own safety, to kill him.
Now, if we can just spin the fact that Shepard was tortured and left to hang like an animal---I think we've got the official story.
7761. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:22 AM PDT
Ah, silly me, and here I thought the news reports said that the guys enticed Shepard out of the bar after he made a pass at them and beat and robbed him as retribution.
I also noted a related story about two latino men (boys?) who were beaten by these same guys after they left Shepard hanging in the wind. Gays and minorities. Seems these guys had their priorities set.
I think you give too little credit to the impact ideology plays in legitimating certain acts of violence on "targeted" populations.
7762. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:22 AM PDT
109: Well, we could certainly have a discussion about what level of behavior or views is necessary to warrant being called a racist (in fairness to Spike Lee, racism to him is structural and power based, so when he calls the Academy racist, he is saying that their results discriminate against blacks, not that all, or even a significant number, of Academy members are racist themselves. He distinguishes between the terms "prejudiced" and "racist").
But I really don't understand what the point of this argument is in its present context. Are you saying that the crime was not motivated by hatred for gays? Are you saying that the views of Kuligan, et al, are not an -ism in themselves?
When social diseases hit, I prefer to not only deal with the symptoms (the thugs who killed Shepard), but the contributing root causes as well. In this case, homophobia certainly seems to be a factor.
7763. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:27 AM PDT
"One might begin by recognizing that even they have a right to their views. Perhaps the true test of one's principles might lie not in what one does for one's friends, but in what one does, or allows others to do to those one perceives as one's enemies."
This is tripe. A test of principles is to stand up for the rights of everyperson to be treated as humane, and as having equal standing before the law. A test of principles is standing against beliefs that try to justify inequality and the mistreatment of humans.
There are limits to what one should tolerate when people espouse beliefs that have direct consequences on the quality of life for others.
7764. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:29 AM PDT
Max:" Perhaps outrages like the aforementioned murder really have little to do with hate and much more to do with the kind of person that just gets off on hurting those perceived to be weaker than themselves. The predatory abuse of physical power, rather than hate."
The initial post of yours I responded to equated criticism of gay bashers with homophobia. I find this a false comparison. The point you raise here is a different one. I am sure that the thugs who killed Shepard were indeed predators who enjoyed abusing power. But when rhetoric flies around providing a rationalization for believing that abusing people is okay, that rhetoric needs to be fought, and those who spout it should have their noses rubbed in the deeds they indirectly helped cause.
7765. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:30 AM PDT
Charlie
The problem with hate crime legislation is that it is superfluous and a distraction. If you cannot get the guy on the underlying crime, the fact that he yelled "Nigger" during it is a poor substitute. Hate crime legislation is a national statement and has no real practical value. All crimes suggest hatred, or, at a minimum, great disrespect.
7766. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:34 AM PDT
Sorry, Niner. Usually the guy who did the crime was caught, and then let go because the victim was gay, or black or (fill in minority of your choice here).
They got the guy who did the underlying crime, usually the Judicial system just didn't think the crime was too bad.
7767. JaDeGoLd - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:35 AM PDT
"Where's the Outrage?"
WRT hate crimes; it is a very different matter to have someone spray paint a rude name on your double-wide than it is to have someone paint a swastika (if you're Jewish) or burning a cross (if you're black).
By your logic, any of the above acts would be mere vaandalism.
7768. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:36 AM PDT
I'm wondering how far this can be taken. Would the guys who killed the "Four Little Girls" that were the subject of the recent Spike Lee documentary have done it anyway, or to other people, if they weren't racists? Would lynchers have found someone white to lynch if there weren't blacks around?
Hatred is indeed a motive, and I strongly believe it behooves society to fight it tooth and nail.
7769. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:38 AM PDT
William Buckley on hate-crimes:
"Oh, if only liberals hated crime as much as they hate hate."
7770. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:38 AM PDT
109109:
"But, be fair. The political trumpeting of "bigotry" and "racist" (hell, it even occurs when Spike Lee doesn't get nominated) contributes to this problem. And the proff is in the pudding. These threads are loaded with accusations of bigotry or some ism, and no one bats an eye, because the power of the charge is so diminished."
On the contrary, if the accusation held little power, you wouldn't get so bent out of shape by it. The fact that you and others regularly express such indignation over what you claim to be false or exaggerated accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., is testament to the power of those charges.
"And when folks tie a sick death to a larger political aim, I think it contributes. He was murdered. I don't care why, because it is all too common an occurrence. I only care to see his murderers put to death."
Well, unlike you, I do care why, and I would submit that understanding WHY people commit violence is vital to any effective efforts to reduce it.
7771. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:40 AM PDT
Rask
"But I really don't understand what the point of this argument is in its present context. Are you saying that the crime was not motivated by hatred for gays? Are you saying that the views of Kuligan, et al, are not an -ism in themselves?"
I don't know Kuligin's views. I avoid Religion like it's the Discovery channel. That said, I know he is a Christian and I assume he thinks homosexuals will go to hell. That, as I understand it, is homophobia. As for the crime, again, who knows what motivated it? Too early. My point is broader. I don't see the motivation as relevant. They are criminals, and it seems of no more import that they kill a man because he is gay, black, weak, poor, stupid, Catholic, in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are animals, and animals are prodded by many factors. I don't fear one more than another. I fear them all.
"When social diseases hit, I prefer to not only deal with the symptoms (the thugs who killed Shepard), but the contributing root causes as well. In this case, homophobia certainly seems to be a factor."
I think this is mildly Pollyanna, and I probably just disagree philosophically with you. I believe treatment is out of the question for beasts. They must be put down.
7772. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:43 AM PDT
Elliot
Do I appear "bent out of shape"? I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. As for the "why", as with Rask, I have a philosophical disagreement with you.
7773. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:44 AM PDT
Charlie
I don't doubt the historical accuracy of your position. I'm not sure it is relevant today, and, frankly, if a jury will not convict on an underlying crime because of inborn prejudices, I find it unlikely that they will be swayed by "hate crime" legislation.
7774. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:45 AM PDT
109109:
"The problem with hate crime legislation is that it is superfluous and a distraction. If you cannot get the guy on the underlying crime, the fact that he yelled "Nigger" during it is a poor substitute."
This is nonsense. Yelling "nigger" is not a crime. If you cannot get the guy on the "underlying crime," the hate crime law is meaningless, since the only effect of such laws is to provide for enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by certain forms of hatred. Hate itself is not a crime, and no one is suggesting that it be made into one.
"Hate crime legislation is a national statement and has no real practical value."
It most definitely does have practical value. It allows judges and prosecutors to impose greater penalties on crimes committed through motives that society has decided are particularly heinous.
7775. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:47 AM PDT
109109:
"Do I appear "bent out of shape"?"
Well, given the frequency with which you decry what you claim to be false accusations of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., yes, I'd say you do appear bent out of shape on this matter.
7776. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:49 AM PDT
Elliot
I don't see bashing a guy's head in for a roll of quarters or because he is gay as all that distinguishable. Both should get as much time as possible. But, reasonable minds can differ.
7777. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:50 AM PDT
109109:
How do you expect us to reduce crime without understanding what causes people to commit it?
7778. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:51 AM PDT
Raskolnikov. 7768:
You can't fight hatred. It is an integral part of human nature. Is one to "hate" hatred? Surely, that is absurd. In some parts of the south, it is blacks. In europe, it is gypsies & Jews. In Israel, it is Arabs. In Islam, it is infidels. In Iran, it is nearly everyone.
By demeaning and dehumanizing an individual or group, you "tag" them as targets for predation. Predation itself is part of nature. The process of predation is how nature insures that resources are not endlessly tied up in unproductive endeavor. Mankind is inextricably p[art of nature and predation is part of mankind's nature.
You can't fight that, Rasky. It seems to me, that our only hope is to limit the damage this process does through the concept of human rights. This is to say that, no matter how much one may despise an individual or group, one cannot be permitted to violate their rights. One cannot be permitted to committ atrocity against another human being; gay, black, gypsy, Jew, Indian, Pakistani, whatever. As long as society insists on respect for human rights, the mayhem can be contained.
7779. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:53 AM PDT
Elliot
To the extent it can be reduced (and I'm not so sure that is a truism given the insatiable desires of the modern American), by ruthlessly punishing criminals at every turn.
7781. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:57 AM PDT
109109:
Do you accept that there is meaningful distinction between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter? The only differences between these types of criminal homicide are differences of intent and motive. The only difference between a first degree murder and a second degree murder is that the former is premeditated and intentional while the latter is merely intentional. Our society has always recognized that premeditation makes the crime more heinous and worthy of greater punishment, even if the end result is identical to an unpremeditated crime. If you accept the validity of this moral principle, I don't see how you can deny that society may also legitimately determine that crimes with certain motives are more heinous than identical crimes with different motives.
7782. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:57 AM PDT
Niner:" I don't see the motivation as relevant. They are criminals, and it seems of no more import that they kill a man because he is gay, black, weak, poor, stupid, Catholic, in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are animals, and animals are prodded by many factors. I don't fear one more than another. I fear them all."
As I understand it, there is a long standing history of judging the severity of the crime by using the motive. If I kill my wife in a fit of pique, I get a less stiff sentence than if the whole thing was premeditated and if I had "malice aforethought" in mind. So, motive *IS* relevant. If, as a society, we decide that hate crimes warrant a stricter punishment, I don't see a problem.
And you misunderstand what I meant about "getting rid of the underlying social causes". I don't advocate making the killers undergo sensitivity training. Lock them up and throw away the key (or introduce them to Mr Sparky, if you prefer). But at the same time, I think we need to pay attention to where the hate comes from, and try to stop it. One way of doing this is using Shepard as an example of what recent anti-gay diatribes have wrought, and convincing them to shut up.
7785. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:00 AM PDT
109109. 7779:
Society can also make it clear that cetain misbehavior absolutely will not be tolerated, socially as well as legally. In some parts of the south, I am told it is still permissable to abuse blacks, in the part of the country where I am, there are those who consider it acceptable to abuse gays. Society must make it clear that the abuse of ANYONE is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
7786. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:02 AM PDT
max:"You can't fight that, Rasky. It seems to me, that our only hope is to limit the damage this process does through the concept of human rights. This is to say that, no matter how much one may despise an individual or group, one cannot be permitted to violate their rights. One cannot be permitted to committ atrocity against another human being; gay, black, gypsy, Jew, Indian, Pakistani, whatever. As long as society insists on respect for human rights, the mayhem can be contained."
Your own examples show a large difference in the degree to which hatred exists in various societies. This to me is evidence that to a certain extent, hatred is cultural, and thus can be fought by changing culture. I can't speak first hand, but it is certainly my impression that hatred toward blacks in the south has decreased since the civil rights movement, and that the acceptability of gays in society has been rising in fits and spurts since WWII.
7788. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:03 AM PDT
109109: Re: 7779
I agree that harsher penalties, independent of motive, may reduce crime. I just don't understand why you think that understanding motives is not also important to crime reduction.
7789. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:04 AM PDT
Elliot
"I don't see how you can deny that society may also legitimately determine that crimes with certain motives are more heinous than identical crimes with different motives."
I don't. In the case of hate crime legislation, I have misgivings because I don't think it is particularly practical (in fact, I have a fear that it could be a lesser included offense if stand-alone) and I have some philosophical objections to making killing someone because they are black more heinous than killing someone because they have a roll of quarters. To me, they are equally heinous because the victim is equally dead.
That said, my cruel punishment for criminals tack makes my opposition to hate crime legislation mild and esoteric.
7790. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:05 AM PDT
" Society must make it clear that the abuse of ANYONE is not acceptable and will not be tolerated."
I agree with this, but think that relatively few violent crimes are committed by people who make a rational calculation about the consequences of being caught. Emotions play too large a part. Therefore, we need to fight the hate directly.
7792. spudboy - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:13 AM PDT
A quick, in-and-out note:
Penalties against hate crimes don't merely exist as a societal statement or a means of enhancing punishment, as 109s suggests. They exist because there is an important element in these crimes that sets them apart from the simple crimes they resemble (and which the conservatives here seem unable to distinguish).
Unlike in most other crimes, the intended target of a hate crime is not merely the immediate, palpable victim, but the entire class of people to whom the victim belongs. These crimes are intended not merely to harm a single person, but to strike terror into all members of the minority to whom they belong.
This added dimension -- one that undercuts and corrodes our most precious principles of democracy, that of the right to equal opportunity -- is the reason we've chosen as a society to create an added dimension of sanction to combat these crimes. It's in our best interest to punish these crimes over and above simpler crimes like assault or vandalism because they are terrorist acts that harm a much broader range of people. Indeed, they harm our society more egregiously than simple crimes. And despite claims to the contrary, they don't create a "special class" of victim; all crime victims are potentially hate-crime victims if they belong to a class (and it could be white males) that is itself that actual object of the crime.
Mebbe this topic should have its own thread.
7793. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:13 AM PDT
109109:
"To me, they are equally heinous because the victim is equally dead."
But the victim is equally dead in the case of the crime of first degree murder and the crime of manslaughter. Yet our legal tradition has always recognized that first degree murder is more heinous than manslaughter. That's the whole reason for establishing different categories of criminal homicide. Unless you wish to abolish this system as well, your argument "equal result = equally heinous" doesn't make sense.
7794. elliot803 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:14 AM PDT
spudboy: #7792: Yes, exactly right.
7797. notashamed - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:20 AM PDT
Could someone tell me how far back I have to go to find a post about impeachment? My time is limited.
7799. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:21 AM PDT
impeachment? why would we be talking about that in this thread?
7800. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:22 AM PDT
Rask
"As I understand it, there is a long standing history of judging the severity of the crime by using the motive. If I kill my wife in a fit of pique, I get a less stiff sentence than if the whole thing was premeditated and if I had "malice aforethought" in mind. So, motive *IS* relevant. If, as a society, we decide that hate crimes warrant a stricter punishment, I don't see a problem."
No. You confuse motive and intent/state of mind. If you kill someone because they are black, or old, or poor, or loud, your charge is the same. Here is the breakdown"
voluntary manslaughter - you kill someone in a bar fight.
involuntary manslaughter - you kill someone while drunk in your car
felony murder - Elliot and I rob a bank; Elliot kills a guard
first degree murder - I kill you by placing poison on your keyboard
second degree murder - I rob a bank and accidentally or without premediation kill a guard.
Motive is irrelevant.
7801. notashamed - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:23 AM PDT
Maybe we should discuss truth in advertising laws.
7803. BobaFett - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:24 AM PDT
Charlie and Jexster (what a pair!)
By the way, I'm a British Secret Agent. My code number is 007.
That proves it, doesn't it?
7804. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:25 AM PDT
Elliot
See above for what I believe to be your misunderstanding of modern criminal law. State of mind deals with culpability. Intent deals with whether you want someone dead.
Why you want them dead is irrelevant.
7806. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:26 AM PDT
As Elliot said, you've got it right in #7792, Spudboy.
109 -- If motive is irrelevant should Janet Reno and Louis Freeh be pursuing Eric Alan Rudolph so vociferously?
7808. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:30 AM PDT
Spud
"They exist because there is an important element in these crimes that sets them apart from the simple crimes they resemble (and which the conservatives here seem unable to distinguish)."
Maybe so. As I've said, getting killed because you are black or poor or old makes you no less dead and make it no more heinous to me.
"Unlike in most other crimes, the intended target of a hate crime is not merely the immediate, palpable victim, but the entire class of people to whom the victim belongs. These crimes are intended not merely to harm a single person, but to strike terror into all members of the minority to whom they belong."
This is parsing. I don't know about you, but all crimes strike terror into me. Hence, our philosophical divergence. And if the two thugs who killed the poor kid in Wyoming intended to strike terror into the hearts of homosexuals nationwide, I'll be shocked.
7809. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:30 AM PDT
cllrdr
Eek! Who is Rudolph?
7810. justlooking - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:32 AM PDT
fugative bomber (do I have to add alleged?)
7812. jexster - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
Niner,
If the two thugs intended to roll a fag, we'll never know. Motive is irrelevant and Wyoming has no hate crime statute.
7813. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
The Atlanta Olympics/women's health clinic/lesbian night club bomber who has been hiding out in the woods.
7814. max012000 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
Excuse me, but it seems that most everyone is missing the point.
If the President cannot be counted on the level with the public when necessary and actively misleads everyone, even when he has sworn an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, hasn't he made it very dangerous for the public to allow him to remain in office?
If the President, the Vice President and members of the DNC wilfully compromised the security interests of the United States in exchange for campaign contributions from the People's Republic of China, have they not committed a serious breach of faith with the country and the duties of office? If this business is not serious, why have key figures fled to China? Does not its possession of these people give China very dangerous leverage over the Clinton administration. Does not their vulnerability to blackmail render the President and Vice President serious security risks? If this sort of thing would be considered treason in time of war, wouldn't it be considered at least serious in time of "peace"? If the Attorny General has known about this and made every effort to obstruct the investigation of these matters, shouldn't she be impeached as well?
7815. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:34 AM PDT
Interpleader? Crap. I used to know that.