HRC Hate Crimes Petition

[Lisbeth]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544

[Pysgod]

signed.....

[Sandi]

I am opposed to any kind of hate crime legislation. It has nothing to do with the crime or hate.

For example, beat a homosexual or person of color to death; hate crime. Beat your grandmother to death in exactly the same way with as much or even more hate in your heart; not a hate crime. The two crimes are identical and deserve the same punishment (death or life in prison), but only one is a hate crime. There for it has nothing to do with the crime, or hate.

It is a presumption by the prosecution of the accused's though process towards not all, but certain people. It's a political term legislated to be a legal and judicial definition of the defendants thought process, not the crime, but only against certain victims.

Thus some groups are protected from evil thoughts directed at them, while others are unprotected from such thoughts.

[RebeccaFog]

I am opposed to any kind of hate crime legislation. It has nothing to do with the crime or hate.

For example, beat a homosexual or person of color to death; hate crime. Beat your grandmother to death in exactly the same way with as much or even more hate in your heart; not a hate crime. The two crimes are identical and deserve the same punishment (death or life in prison), but only one is a hate crime. There for it has nothing to do with the crime, or hate.

It is a presumption by the prosecution of the accused's though process towards not all, but certain people. It's a political term legislated to be a legal and judicial definition of the defendants thought process, not the crime, but only against certain victims.

Thus some groups are protected from evil thoughts directed at them, while others are unprotected from such thoughts.

    A crime is a crime is a crime - in the perfect universe. In our society, however, there are times when a victim of a crime really needs a way to obtain justice because the local yahoos on the police force, the bench, or the jury, identify with the criminal instead of the victim.
    If you beat your grandmother to death, there would be no issue with the prosecution attempting to achieve justice. If somebody beat you to death because you're a weirdo and a pervert, the killer might be prosecuted with diligence, but what if a detective blew off some evidence because you, the victim, are a weirdo and a pervert. Then what? At least with hate crime legislation, if the criminal can be shown to have killed you because of what you are, they will at least be punished for a hate crime, if not murder. Or, with hate crime legislation, maybe your loved ones can have the detective prosecuted for blowing the case due to a known bias.

   You are aware that there are known cases of Transpeople being killed or else seriously assaulted and the crime either goes entirely uninvestigated, or the perpetrator is barely punished, if at all?

   In a perfect world, all crimes would be handled with all due diligence and justice. In an even more perfect world, there would be no crime. We're not asking for special treatment, we're asking for the same consideration that would be given in the case of grandma being beaten to death.

   Maybe in a decade or so, the laws will be unnecessary, however, at this time, the local authorities need to know that if they need to act properly in ensuring that we have the same justice that grandma would receive without a second thought.

   I don't know if I explained it well. I'm sure there are others here who can state better the need for these laws.

[Sandi]

At least with hate crime legislation, if the criminal can be shown to have killed you because of what you are, they will at least be punished for a hate crime, if not murder.

You are still punishing a person for their thoughts, separate from the crime they committed. Once we start down that slope what next? As long as the punishment for the though is separate from the crime, how long before we start punishing for the thought, sans crime?

This isn't a country where we want to start punishing people for what they are thinking. Yet that is exactly what hate crime does.

[Dennis]

You are still punishing a person for their thoughts, separate from the crime they committed. Once we start down that slope what next? As long as the punishment for the though is separate from the crime, how long before we start punishing for the thought, sans crime?

This isn't a country where we want to start punishing people for what they are thinking. Yet that is exactly what hate crime does.

Criminal law has always punished based on intention. It's not thought control. The intention is relevant to the crime.

If someone kills someone because they have a heart attack and their car gets out of control, that is a much different matter than killing someone because they become enraged and hit them over the head with a steel pole. And that is further different from a planned, pre-meditated murder, or going out to a gay area to kill someone for being gay. The difference is in the intention. Hate crime laws simply reflect that and are an extension of the current state of the law in most common law countries, not an entirely different move for the law.

Dennis

[Sandi]

Criminal law has always punished based on intention. It's not thought control. The intention is relevant to the crime.

Then please do explain to me why the person who hated his grandmother with a passion, said so, and chopped her up in little pieces isn't charged with a hate crime.

[Pysgod]

Criminal law has always punished based on intention. It's not thought control. The intention is relevant to the crime.

Then please do explain to me why the person who hated his grandmother with a passion, said so, and chopped her up in little pieces isn't charged with a hate crime.

Because the penalty for that will be larger than the one for killing a transgender or gay person. They won't care that he hates his grandmother. He'll get most likely max punishment possible. But if same guy killed someone for being transgender or gay they won't put as much of a punishment on him. Just look at the guys who killed Gwen Araujo. They got off fairly lightly for their crime. They did not get the punishment they deserved. They got less. The only real hate crimes that get the punishment needed is the ones involving skin color and racial identification. And Rebecca is right. All too often murders and beatings of transgender and gays are either not really investigated much. Or they don't bother. Chalk it up to bad timing or robbery or something. They end up becoming statistics. Look how many transgender women have been killed because of being transgender. Then look at the sentences involved. Most if not all have been light.
And there are some that were investigated half-heartedly. But no results were ever found.

[RebeccaFog]

Criminal law has always punished based on intention. It's not thought control. The intention is relevant to the crime.

Then please do explain to me why the person who hated his grandmother with a passion, said so, and chopped her up in little pieces isn't charged with a hate crime.

    If a person chops up their grandmother and then tells the cops that his grandmother was a transsexual, they will probably not be punished as much, if at all.

[Sandi]

Because the penalty for that will be larger than the one for killing a transgender or gay person. They won't care that he hates his grandmother.

You make my point for me, that hate crime isn't about the crime, but about who the crime is commited against. Or look at it from another angle, as someone previously stated, it is about the intention.

In which case, some people are protected from intentions driven by hate, while others are not protected from intention driven by hate that is as vile or even worse (such as the grandmother example). Is that equal protection under the law? Not by a long shot.

I don't understand how you can say "They won't care that he hates his grandmother." I, or I think anyone on a jury would be livid if that hate drove a person to do such a crime. In fact there is hardly a malicious crime ever commited without hate. You cannot in good conscious say that equal levels of hate should be treated differently depending on who the hate is directed at.

If a person chops up their grandmother and then tells the cops that his grandmother was a transsexual, they will probably not be punished as much, if at all.

That is absolutely untrue.

[Dennis]

Criminal law has always punished based on intention. It's not thought control. The intention is relevant to the crime.

Then please do explain to me why the person who hated his grandmother with a passion, said so, and chopped her up in little pieces isn't charged with a hate crime.

Because that intention is already covered by the law. First degree murder in this jurisdiction. That's what the difference between first, second degree and manslaughter is, is intention. The problem with the way intention works in law is that if you hate your grandmother and plan to kill her, and do so, it's a specific intention. You are guilty of first degree murder. If you hate queers and you go out and plan to kill one, and kill a guy named John Doe, your intention wasn't specific to John Doe, so it's often not considered more than second degree or manslaughter, even if John Doe happened to be gay and you killed him because he was gay. That's why hate crimes legislation is needed - it makes that intention attach to the crime.

Dennis

If a person chops up their grandmother and then tells the cops that his grandmother was a transsexual, they will probably not be punished as much, if at all.

That is absolutely untrue.

Actually it's not. Sentencing when the victim is gay or trans, even in Canada, is lighter. I had an attempted murder case where I was arguing that a sentence of 4-6 years was appropriate, and all I could find were gay bashings to support my position. So I brought forward a bunch of cases where gay men were victimized and said these cases are all similar (mine was not a gay bashing case) by the circumstances of the crime and I was ready to argue (although I didn't need to - the judge got it) that just because the victim was straight in my case didn't mean that these cases were not applicable.

I haven't done a review of sentence cases in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same result were there. I was really surprised about it when I did that research. If you cut the gay bashing cases out, the average sentence was 8-10 years. By putting the gay bashing cases in, I managed to bring it down to 4-6 years and get my client a sentence of 5 years.

Dennis

[Sandi]

You and others are welcome to your opinions, and I truly understand your beef, so I won't belabor it. However I believe "hate crime" bills are not about hate, but a feel good legislation that does nothing to stop hate or bigotry.

I am strongly against it, have posted such on my blog in the past, and will continue to do so (although my 150-200 daily readers isn't much of a splash).

[Dennis]

How else would you handle the problem, Sandi?

I mean the specific intent versus general intent?

Dennis

[Pica Pica]

I think you might be getting a bit too focused on the name hatecrime, if it were known prejudicury crime, or group-targeted crime, then you may not feel quite so angry about it. It's not about hate, it's about protecting vulnerable groups against being ignored, or passed over briefly by the legal systems.

[RebeccaFog]

I think you might be getting a bit too focused on the name hatecrime, if it were known prejudicury crime, or group-targeted crime, then you may not feel quite so angry about it. It's not about hate, it's about protecting vulnerable groups against being ignored, or passed over briefly by the legal systems.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. 

[Lisbeth]

From my Republican Senator:

Dear Ms. Kellogg:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 1105 ).

Minnesota already has similar laws and it does not appear that there have been problems in its application or enforcement. Accordingly, I am inclined to support this at the federal level.

As you may know, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 1105) was introduced by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and referred the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration. This legislation would provide resources to law enforcement officials to enhance prevention and prosecution efforts of hate crimes. Companion legislation (H.R. 1592) passed in the House on May 3, 2007.

Thank you once again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

[Lori]

Getting a crime classified as a hate crime will also allow Federal funding.

When Mathew Sheppard was beaten and killed, the local police dept spent so much in money and resources they had to lay off several deputies just to convict the accused. Getting it classifed as a hate crime gives Federal money incentives to prosecute and everything in this world comes down to the almighty dollar. The city  can either spend $25 thousand to find and prosecute grandma's killer or $25,000 on the people that killed the TG/TS. My money is on grandma. But with the federal funding, they have no excuse to treat each case the same.