Susan's Place Transgender Resources

My 17 year old son told me he thinks hate crime laws are stupid.  There should be no extra penalty for hate crimes.  He thinks any crime is hate crime because criminals don't care about the victims.

I tried to explain that hate crime laws are good but couldn't change his mind.  How can explain to him that hate crime laws are necessary?

I'm MTF and transitioned years ago. He lives with me and we have a great relationship.  I know he loves me and accepts me for who I am. 

The idea of hate crime laws are so that offenders don't get off easy when they often do because of prejudice on the part of those responsible for sentencing. Once that is evened out, the need for them is gone. That is a long time coming.

I've never supported them, and they have often got in the way of conviction.  It's hard to prove intent, it's much easier to prove action.

Sentence all those who commit violent crimes to the longest term possible. Death if appropriate. At least one of the guys who dragged Byrd to his death found out the hard way how Texas deals with killers. The adult in the McDonalds beating got at least three years. The men who killed Sheppard years ago got life, that was what Montana?

Meanwhile  black on white mob violence has been common in various US cities this summer. Though those caught in those cases are not facing your so called hate crimes. It would seem that a white person being beaten by a group of black teens isn't a hate crime, just an assualt.

So why is a white on black crime considered hate?

Gay groups have even been caught on the suspect side. It's one thing to stop a gay bashing, an entirely different thing to start and end fights. I believe you can google "pink pistols" for those cases.

A hate crime targets a group, not an individual.  That's the key.  There is the crime against the individual, which is significant.  Someone dead, for instance, is dead regardless of their skin color, sex, gender expression, sexual preference, religion, etc.  And it's just as significant no matter who they are.  But many crimes stop there - they were an attack against an individual.  But other crimes are an attack against a community of people.  Sure, only one person was attacked, but the attack was intended to send a message to the entire group: you aren't welcome, and I'll (insert crime) if I see you.

If I am walking down the street and someone attacks me, maybe beats me up, but didn't do so because of bigotry against some group I'm part of, it might concern people who frequent that area.  But most people probably wouldn't be particularly afraid for themselves, at least not any more or less afraid than they were of that area before.

But if I was attacked because I was a member of a certain religious group while walking to my church, that gives the entire religious group a reason to feel afraid.  It was an attack against them, not just against me, and certainly not random.

Yes, it's hard to prove intent.  (the following is likely US-centric, as I don't know much about other legal systems or cultures)  But intent is used in many prosecutions - for murder vs. manslaughter, for instance (and the degrees of murder as well).  It is definitely used in determining sentencing - did the person intend to do great evil to someone else, or did they do it because they felt trapped and had little choice?  Both may be crimes, but one may be a significantly longer sentence, due to intent.  This works in civil cases too.  Intent is already part of law.  (a scary trend is the new trend of creating laws that don't require criminal intent for a person to be guilty, but that's for another post).  The Latin term for this is mens rea and is a relatively old part of the legal heritage of the US and at least a few other nations.

The second reason for hate crime laws is that often relatively minor acts of violence (the hate crime laws I have seen have a relatively high standard for proving guilt, and require physical harm typically, not just thoughts of hate) would be seen as less than they are.  If I was a Jewish person, and someone beat me up because of it and carved a swastika into my arm, that should be treated as a different crime than someone getting into a bar fight.

The third reason for hate crime laws is to guide juries, particularly when deciding things like whether "trans rage" is a legitimate defense.  Without the hate crime charge, juries will use their own prejudice in deciding what is reasonable - and often sentence the person to a lower charge.  The hate crime laws help treat that type of criminal act the same as other similar criminal acts, when it would otherwise be minimized and treated as less criminal.  If this bigotry didn't exist, then this would not be necessary.  But it does exist.  And by having the charge at a trial, the jury knows not only does murder/rape/assault/battery need to be considered, but it's even a worse crime if you did it to target an entire class of people - it's not a more understandable crime, it's a more significant crime.

As for blacks being prosecuted for hate crimes, yes, that does happen.  People like myself (a white person) don't need to be screaming that we're being unfairly discriminated against.  We're not.  And just like every trans person being attacked by a non-trans person isn't necessarily a result of hate towards trans people, not every white attacked by a black is a result of racism.  But it is a lot more common for a trans person or a black person to be attacked because they are trans or black than it is for a white person or a non-trans person to be attacked because they are white or non-trans.

So, yes, crime might all be hate, either specific to an individual or directed to a specific group.  But there is a distinction between crimes with one victim and crimes with a community as a victim.  And it is reasonable for the law to reflect that distinction.

Quote from: Michelle. on October 07, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
The men who killed Sheppard years ago got life, that was what Montana?

(just a bit of factual correction; I was born within a few months of Matthew, grew up like him in Wyoming, and, like him, attended the University of Wyoming at the time)

It was Laramie, Wyoming.  Two men killed Matthew Sheppard.

They both got life.  Their girlfriends helped hide bloody items from the murder and lied to police to provide alibis to the murderers.  One struck a deal with prosecutors and served 4 months for interfering with a police officer (the entirety was served before her conviction).  The other girlfriend got a sentence 18-24 months in jail but served only a bit over 12 months (6 months were before her sentencing).  Both women are free today.

I'm not sure a hate crime law would have changed anything for Matthew.  It's pretty easy, even for a bigot, to understand that what was done to Matthew goes far enough to need the murderers locked up for life.  Most murders, even done out of sheer hate for a group of people, are not nearly as sick as this murder was - so a conviction was pretty much a sure thing, and it was going to be at least life in prison.  It made the news (when so many LGBT murders don't) because of the exceptional nature of the crime.  So hate laws don't do much in that type of situation (we, as a state, would have literally hung the two murderers if it wasn't for a plea by Matthew's parents to not kill them - it's hard to have more severe punishment than that).  But hate crime laws could have helped others in Wyoming, particularly those not directly attacked, feel safer after less-than-lethal attacks on other LGBT people.

Quote from: Michelle. on October 07, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Sentence all those who commit violent crimes to the longest term possible. Death if appropriate. At least one of the guys who dragged Byrd to his death found out the hard way how Texas deals with killers. The adult in the McDonalds beating got at least three years. The men who killed Sheppard years ago got life, that was what Montana?

Meanwhile  black on white mob violence has been common in various US cities this summer. Though those caught in those cases are not facing your so called hate crimes. It would seem that a white person being beaten by a group of black teens isn't a hate crime, just an assualt.

So why is a white on black crime considered hate?

Gay groups have even been caught on the suspect side. It's one thing to stop a gay bashing, an entirely different thing to start and end fights. I believe you can google "pink pistols" for those cases.

This is exactly correct.

The only place it's worth being transgender in is western countries.Why do we constantly try to destroy our safe haven with this looney lefty crap? If we were in asia we'd be forced into prostitution. africa butchered for being white and transgendered. The middle east, executed.

Why destroy the only culture that has accepted us?

Thankyou michelle for your reason in a blinkered subculture!

Quote from: Michelle. on October 07, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Sentence all those who commit violent crimes to the longest term possible. Death if appropriate. At least one of the guys who dragged Byrd to his death found out the hard way how Texas deals with killers. The adult in the McDonalds beating got at least three years. The men who killed Sheppard years ago got life, that was what Montana?

Meanwhile  black on white mob violence has been common in various US cities this summer. Though those caught in those cases are not facing your so called hate crimes. It would seem that a white person being beaten by a group of black teens isn't a hate crime, just an assualt.

So why is a white on black crime considered hate?

Gay groups have even been caught on the suspect side. It's one thing to stop a gay bashing, an entirely different thing to start and end fights. I believe you can google "pink pistols" for those cases.

I concur with you, I was talking to a person the other day over the death of Gadaffi. In my opinion those who tortured and killed him deserve a harsher punishment than the old oppressor did. Why? Nomatter how one would perverse justice, committing an act with ones own hands is infinity more abhorrent than ordering/instigating it. I do not defend the criminal regime of that dictator, like all oppressors he needed to be removed and made to account for his crimes in a court of law, but he was no murderer like those that killed him..

If you would brutally kill by the mere powers of suggestion or impassioned entitlement, you are the lowest of the low and deserve the harshest punishments known to law. I do not believe in capital punishment, but there are many ways to make people rue their crimes. Virtually all hate crimes are motivated by that; impassioned entitlement that you have the right to hurt someone or kill with your own hands.... if we had a functioning criminal system where all violent criminals were punished accordingly there would be no need, but we don't so we need them.

Hate crime laws to me are kind of like anti-bigot schooling.  When laws are interpreted differently because of bigotry and prejudice, something should be done to level the playing field.  Beat someone to a pulp, go to jail, no matter what color the victim's skin is, no matter their sexual orientation, no matter their gender identity.  Since there are people who can't see past their prejudices, we need to do something a bit more to wake them up.  It isn't perfect but it's better than doing nothing.

Quote from: TreeFlower on October 07, 2011, 09:31:34 AM
My 17 year old son told me he thinks hate crime laws are stupid.  There should be no extra penalty for hate crimes.  He thinks any crime is hate crime because criminals don't care about the victims.

I tried to explain that hate crime laws are good but couldn't change his mind.  How can explain to him that hate crime laws are necessary?

I'm MTF and transitioned years ago. He lives with me and we have a great relationship.  I know he loves me and accepts me for who I am.

The only thing stupid about hate crime laws are the people who commit the crimes... They do so out of pure hatred

Imagine going about your day and feeling good when someone walks up and says something like...

"Look you *Fill In The Blank*, I don't like the way you look, I don't like the color of your skin, I don't like the color of your eyes, I don't like your religious and/or political beliefs nor do I like your gender or sexual affiliation... So therefore it is okay for me to steal from you and beat you up and/or kill you"

Hate crime laws are in place for a reason, so people don't bring harm to others out of shear hatred 

Quote from: fionabell on October 21, 2011, 01:21:32 AM
This is exactly correct.

The only place it's worth being transgender in is western countries.Why do we constantly try to destroy our safe haven with this looney lefty crap? If we were in asia we'd be forced into prostitution. africa butchered for being white and transgendered. The middle east, executed.

Why destroy the only culture that has accepted us?

Those "looney lefties" and their "crap" are precisely what have made some countries a decent enough place to live for TG people. Honestly this is the most uninformed statement I have read in a long time. You embarrass me, and yourself.

By the way, calling western culture on the whole "accepting" is a long, long stretch. It mostly still depends on where you live. 

I find it absolutely strange that tea party-minded transwomen even exist; really now, that's like being a Log-Cabin Republican! :P It does one no good to side with those whose would slow-walk or outright abolish progressive social change; change which uplifts our collective moral consciousness, minimizes internal divisive forces, and spurs greater peer cohesion.  Diversity is a good thing, inclusiveness is a good thing; get used to it, because you will be seeing more of it with each younger generation. ;)

The Tea Party? That stands for Taxed Enough Already. Their, primarily, for limited government.*
The Log Cabin Republicans? It's because of them that DADT has been overturned. They brought the suit.
The California Prop 8 battle is a bi-partisian affair. The two lead lawyers from the 2000 election are litigating that case.

*I too can't figure out this whole government in the bedroom, yet none in the boardroom business either.

What also irks me these days is the lack of tru bipartisan efforts. Why aren't the Franks, Kucinichis and Pauls putting forth socially liberal policies? Nor the blue dog Dems and Mod GOPers getting together?

On Hate Crimes. The idea of criminalizing thoughts, no matter how repugnant, scares me worse than anything else.

yet none in the boardroom business either

Corporations only exist because of public charters, so it would be argued that they are indeed public business.

Nooooooooo.

That would put us just a step away from outright "corporatism".

Quote from: Butterflyhugs on October 25, 2011, 05:52:08 AM
Those "looney lefties" and their "crap" are precisely what have made some countries a decent enough place to live for TG people. Honestly this is the most uninformed statement I have read in a long time. You embarrass me, and yourself.

By the way, calling western culture on the whole "accepting" is a long, long stretch. It mostly still depends on where you live.

Precisely. I wouldn't dare to call the significant legislation passed in response to the Jim Crow era as crap. Or even those passed during the Depression Era as terrible.

It strikes me that as an intellectual (Not a genius, I just study the history of thought.) historian, most 'conservatives' are simply yesterdays liberals. It would be incredulous (Not to mention political suicide.) for conservatives to support the positions they held as little as 50 years ago. Racism + Discrimination = Yes! Social Safety net= No! That sounds like a losing platform to me.

The biggest irony to me is that the people that conservative admire the most, the Founders, were in fact the 'crazy/looney' lefties of their time. Every conservative balked at the idea of equality under the law and other 'crappy' ideas like the freedom of expression, and yet modern conservatives revere these pinkos!

I think that conservatives need to just get out of the way in order to allow us to pass significant reform/quality of life legislation. Besides, if they just wait a few years they will be protecting these acts from other, more progressive loonies.

Quote from: fionabell on October 21, 2011, 01:21:32 AM
This is exactly correct.

The only place it's worth being transgender in is western countries.
Why destroy the only culture that has accepted us?

You mean that place where half of transgendered people don't attempt suicide, or where a fifth don't experience discrimination on a daily basis? Or was it that place where trans people can effectively access healthcare regardless of socioeconomic status, and are actually secure in their jobs against bigots?

I assume that your talking about Europe. A place where those 'loonies' have been in power for years, and progressive social policies actually raise the quality and longevity of life for everyone, including trans people!

The funny thing about those continents that you names is that they are and have been perpetually under the control of conservative leaders. If conservatives already want to kill access to birth control and remove trans people from television, what the hell do you think is going to happen to you and your right to access healthcare?

Please, as ever, excuse my ignorance but what is a 'hate crime?'. I would have thought that killing someone etc is a crime. If the crime is particularly barbaric, or is inflicted on many people there is a difference, if it is a psychopath preying on people over a period of time, it is different. I see no difference in murdering a prostitute, a Gay person, a TG person, a person who has yellow and green stripes. or even a politician. The crime surely is the same? I'm probably just not up with what the USA law system means.

Cindy

Quote from: Cindy James on November 12, 2011, 01:16:15 AM
Please, as ever, excuse my ignorance but what is a 'hate crime?'. I would have thought that killing someone etc is a crime. If the crime is particularly barbaric, or is inflicted on many people there is a difference, if it is a psychopath preying on people over a period of time, it is different. I see no difference in murdering a prostitute, a Gay person, a TG person, a person who has yellow and green stripes. or even a politician. The crime surely is the same? I'm probably just not up with what the USA law system means.
Cindy

Certainly murdering someone who is a minority or on the LGBT spectrum is as a horrible as any other murder. However, 'Hate Crimes' are crimes that result because of a person's actual or perceived membership in a social group. In our broken judicial system, punishment is supposed to deter the incidence of crimes. The idea is that hate crimes 'prevent' violence against traditionally discriminated against special groups by increasing the penalty attached to those crimes.

Simply, in order to protect people who are more likely to be killed we threaten to lock up people who specifically target people from these groups.

Thanks,

Is there any evidence that it works?

I find it bizarre, how can killing one person be any different to killing another? Isn't the crime murder?  If they are identified as coming from a particular group, how does that change things? Isn't murder  just ( :embarrassed:) murder? No matter who you kill?

Sorry to sound dumb

Cindy

Quote from: Cindy James on November 12, 2011, 01:49:24 AM
Thanks,

Is there any evidence that it works?

I find it bizarre, how can killing one person be any different to killing another? Isn't the crime murder?  If they are identified as coming from a particular group, how does that change things? Isn't murder  just ( :embarrassed:) murder? No matter who you kill?

Sorry to sound dumb

Cindy

I think what your missing is that the law places an inordinate amount of weight on the intent with which someone committed a particular crime. For instance, if a person accidentally hits a biker while driving they may be charged with manslaughter, because they didn't intend to hurt anyone and yet they killed someone through negligence. However, if a person kidnapped someone else, and stabbed them forty times and left them to die- the intent of the crime is obvious and they would likely be charged with a first degree murder. (To demonstrate, a soldier is technically a murderer, but the intent behind his crime is to 'protect' people so they atrocity of the act is diminished and we don't punish him) In our instance, hate crimes are committed because people specifically target an individual of a specific group for violence, because we live in a society that disallows discrimination, we consider the intent of this crime to be particularly heinous and as such the criminal deserves a particularly large sentence.

As for the efficacy of such policies, hate crimes legislation like other forms of 'getting strict on crime' don't actually prevent crime at all. These policies assume that people are essentially rationale beings that calculate risk vs. reward constantly in their mind, to proponents of 'throw them in prison forever' justice the goal is to make the risks of being convicted so great that no one would dare to commit a crime. However, people are not rationale beings and don't make rationale decisions most of the time. Because people are not rationale, the threat of throwing them in prison forever doesn't phase them, and thus does not decrease the likelihood that someone would commit a crime. But because most people are ignorant of legal issues, and 'getting tough on crime' is a good political strategy, policies that actually utilize our resources effectively to reduce crime such as better education, better socioeconomic opportunities, and diversity training in schools won't be enacted anytime soon.

Tl:DR Trans people and LBGT people still suffer significantly higher rates of violent crime, punishment doesn't work, only policies that promote prevent actually prevent crimes. However, we live in a backward country, so expect to be the victim of violent crime in your lifetime!

However, we live in a backward country

Perhaps some do, but in fact most do not.  Matter of fact lots of people are getting up and going to work today at jobs that are pretty much the opposite of backwards, they are going out to invent the future.

And the evidence is that it tends to muck up the trial, for intent is a very slippery thing.

Creating hate crimes, anti-discrimination laws, and things of that nature raise awareness that there is a disparity in how minorities are treated.  And that's important when one is damaged socially, financially or physically. 

In this impatient world we think if we don't get an instant result then we need to rethink our strategy and develop a new one.  But some things just take time.  The civil rights movement created awareness and started a dialog.  But even today, decades later, there is still prejudice lingering.  Had we not passed laws and enforced them (sometimes) where would we be today?  Probably right back where we were. 

There are too many people who gravitate towards "leadership" roles who know polarizing people by instilling fear in them is a very effective tool in getting them behind you.  And if the fear one is instilling in the masses harms a person or group of people, you need some sort of legal stop gap, because the power hungry won't regulate themselves.

Sure, people are emotional animals and they will still commit crimes even if there is harsher penalties for doing so.  But in time, the social attitude will change and eventually that will be taught in homes, where prejudice begins.  It takes a long time but if nothing is done it will never happen.

Where hate crime laws are effective is not murder cases.  It's cases where a T person gets the crap beat out of them, but will live.  Or a kid in school who is black gets the crap beat out of the, but will live and physically recover.  This isn't a minor crime of "fighting" where likely both parties instigated the fight.

The purpose of the law is to say, "As society, we do not think it's okay to go looking for a black guy to beat up, nor do we see this the same as a simple fist fight."

Another example is arson - it's one thing for me to go and set fire to an abandoned building.  Bad, and should land me in jail.  But if I burn down a mosque, chances are I'm trying to send a message to an entire group of people: You aren't welcome here.  Even if the dollar amounts of damage betweeen the abandoned building and the mosque are the same, the burning of the mosque will have a lot stronger effect on a lot more people. I hurt more people worse if I burnt down a mosque.  The "punishment" should fit the crime.

Hate crimes in the US are laws against using arson or physical violence to rid my community of minorities I don't like.

It's similar to other crimes - if I burnt down a judge's house because he's presiding in a case against a fellow gang member, the penalty is worse than if I burnt down most other people's house.  It's not about property damage - it's about the crime of trying to subvert the judicial system.  Likewise, hate crimes aren't about property damage or violence towards a person, they are about trying to deny freedom to minorities that legislators think have a right to live even in places where some dislike those minorities.  Like the attack on the judge, it's an attack on society in a way simple assault or arson is not.

The other difference between these beatings and typical beatings (like a typical bar fight) is that in the typical case, there is one victim.  In a "gay bashing", the victims are all gays who are unable to enjoy walking around society without undo fear.

Quote from: Slanan on November 12, 2011, 10:28:50 AM
The other difference between these beatings and typical beatings (like a typical bar fight) is that in the typical case, there is one victim.  In a "gay bashing", the victims are all gays who are unable to enjoy walking around society without undo fear.

This ^^.

Are there a good number of people interested in politics or are otherwise wonkettes here?

Sorry for reviving this topic from the dead.

This topic recently came up in my life, and while I can see both sides of this argument, I think that Slanan's posts really drive the point home about these types of laws, and how premeditation and intent are the base for our legal system here in the US, and I just wanted to say thank you.

I think what the opponents of hate crime legislation don't understand (besides the perspective of a victim of hate) is the effect something like this has on a group, whatever kind of group that may be.