Well, you can’t interfere with the sea lions, they are protected. But you must save the salmon, they are protected. The paradox became palpable.
Here we have another law which demonstrates its basic irrationality. Because it sets up protected classes of people which get more protection than ordinary victims, what happens when a protected person attacks a protected person?
The case involves three lesbians who attacked a homosexual man.
Now if anyone outside the protected class had done this crime, the additional punishment would be automatic, because it becomes a hate crime regardless of actual motivation. This was well established in the Matthew Shepard case, where the attackers didn’t even know that the victim was homosexual; it was a robbery gone bad. But in this case, the question arises, “can a person in Category Z hate another person in Category Z because of that person’s membership in Category Z”?
The ACLU staff attorney claims that Jews can be anti-Semitic, thereby proving that class hatred still applies, even within the class. So the paradox becomes even more bizarre, having to involve self-hatred as well as class hatred as motivators. Not that that has to be proved. All that needs to be proved is that the victim is in a protected class according to the prosecutors and the ACLU.
But wait. The lesbians charge that the homosexual man used “homophobic slurs” too. And it is the slur which is the crime, apparently. So maybe he deserves 10 years in lock down too?
And here’s the prosecutor’s actual stance:
” But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.
‘The defendants’ particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them,’ he said.”
That sounds like every person to me. So any assault is a hate crime, because every person is different from every other person. That sort of levels it out. Or is it every assault which is accompanied with objectionable language? If that is the case, then when you assault someone, be sure to compliment that person, especially on whatever categories they might belong to. It’ll save you an extra ten years in the can.
12 comments:
Stan wondered:
"Because it sets up protected classes of people which get more protection than ordinary victims, what happens when a protected person attacks a protected person?"
Dept. of Justice:
"hate crimes, or bias-motivated crimes,
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national ori-
gin." (162304.pdf)
Stan said:
"Now if anyone outside the protected class had done this crime, the additional punishment would be automatic, because it becomes a hate crime regardless of actual motivation."
Not true according to the law. To be a hate crime the offense must be motivated by hatred 'cos of race, religion, sexual orientation and stuff like that not simply being a member of some minority.
Stan said:
"This was well established in the Matthew Shepard case, where the attackers didn’t even know that the victim was homosexual; it was a robbery gone bad."
How do you know this is true?
Accordinng to the girlfriend of the attackers: The attackers went to bar that the gay people hung out. Pretended to be gay in order to gain trust.
When they got caught the attackers originally claimed they had "gay panic" and went insane because Mathew "made advances". Why tying him up and torturing him? Why did the attackers offer''Well, you know how I feel about gays,'' as an excuse?
It wasn't until later that they changed their story to robbery gone wrong.
You seem certain that is was "robbery gone bad". How do you know?
" ‘Now if anyone outside the protected class had done this crime, the additional punishment would be automatic, because it becomes a hate crime regardless of actual motivation.’
Not true according to the law. To be a hate crime the offense must be motivated by hatred 'cos of race, religion, sexual orientation and stuff like that not simply being a member of some minority.”
Motivation is impossible to prove. Motivation must be assumed based on material evidence which suggests it. The primary evidence is the existence of a protected class as victim. Secondary evidence is eye-witness, or possibly confession. There is no physical evidence possible for class hatred as motivation. In the absence of eye-witness or confession, the existence of class hatred as a motivator is presumed, only.
“You seem certain that is was "robbery gone bad". How do you know?”
From the Washington Times:
”The ultimate irony in all this is that Matthew Shepard’s death was probably not a “hate crime” at all.
A courageous investigative report by ABC’s “20/20,” which they unfortunately buried on the day after Thanksgiving in 2004, revealed that most of the people most closely involved in the case say that the attack on Matthew Shepard was motivated by robbery and driven by drugs — not by hostility towardMatthew Shepard’s homosexuality. If he was specifically targeted, it may have been because he was small (only 105 pounds) and well-dressed — not because he was a homosexual.
When asked about the proof that it was a “hate crime,” Cal Rerucha, who prosecuted the case, declared, “Well, I don’t think the proof was there… That was something that they [friends of Shepard] had decided.”
Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, “Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide… What it came down to, really, is drugs and money.”
McKinney’s girlfriend, Kristen Price, said, “I knew that night it was all about getting money… Money to get drugs.” McKinney himself, talking for the first time (he did not testify at his trial), told ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas that “it wasn’t a hate crime… [A]ll I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him.”
In fact, McKinney said, “I have gay friends. … You know, that kind of thing don’t bother me so much.” “
(continued)
Now, how about Jesse Dirkhising, a 13 year old boy who was tortured, raped and murdered by homosexuals? According to ABS news:
”Editors at the television networks and major newspapers have responded that they covered the Shepard crime because it was part of a national issue — hate crime legislation.
"For a crime story or a murder story, even a horrific and sad one like [that of] Jesse Dirkhising, to be covered by the national press, I think there has to be an issue of larger social significance attached to it," says Martha Moore, a media reporter for USA Today.
Editors say that while it may seem cold, countless rapes and murders — gay and straight — regularly go unreported in the national media because they are not part of a larger issue.
Horrific Crime
Editors also say that the horrific details of the Dirkhising case made it hard to report.
According to an account Brown gave police after his arrest, he and Carpenter had tied Dirkhising to a bed with duct tape as part of a "game." Then they gave Dirkhising an enema of urine that they had dosed with amitriptyline, an antidepressant and a sedative.
Jesse was gagged with a pair of dirty underwear while Brown raped the boy and Carpenter directed the scene, according to Brown's account. The boy died of suffocation, which Brown said was an accident.
Brown told police he was acting on instructions that Carpenter wrote and drew for him on a pad of paper. Prosecutors plan to use the notes and diagrams as evidence at Carpenter's trial.
Another charge prosecutors intend to make at Carpenter's trial is that the men were planning on other rapes. Prosecutors intend to to submit handwritten short stories that police found in Carpenter's apartment, which were explicit writings envisioning future rapes and tortures, mentioning one local girl by name.”
Why would this crime on a 13 year old boy be lesser in value? Why? Because the child had lesser social value than Shepard. As would all their victims, had they not been caught.
Yo, in an interview with Pierotti in 2009:
"“As far as Matt is concerned, I don’t have any remorse,” McKinney said, “The night I did it, I did have hatred for (homosexuals)”
He goes on to say that he still dislikes gays and that his perceptions about Shepard’s sex life bolstered his belief that the killing was justified."
Your article (the one that made you so certain) has people speculating about the killers motivation and McKinney say "I have gay friends" and it doesn't bother him (which directly contradicts the evidence he gave under oath).
Watching the 2004 20/20 episode on youtube your article quotes -
Detective DeBere(?spelling?) under oath had testified that the original statements made by the murderers left no doubt in his mind that the attacks were not only premeditated, but were motivated by hatred of homosexuals, and homosexuality, which seems much more backed-up by the actions of McKinney's own defense of his reaction to homosexuality, rather than if the motivation of the attack had been drug-related. But whatever, you are free to ignore that part and believe whatever makes you feel comfortable.
And what does the fact that homosexuals can commit horrific crimes too have to do with hate-crimes? Did they tell the police it was motivated by hatred of hetrosexuals? Where's the hate-crime part?
The point is taken. And the point is given back: is there no uncertainty in your mind that the killers of one deserve extra punishment over the killers of the other? If not, then you wish to punish, not the act, but the thought. It is the thought which makes the act so much more evil.
The moral judgment being made is this: since the thought is so evil, then the thought itself should be punished, and punished by the amount of extra punishment attached to a crime.
But that can't be done, because thoughts cannot be known either empirically or forensically, and thus require some sort of testimony. There is no physical evidence possible of actual thoughts (especially past thoughts); it must be inferred as a second order extrapolation.
The thought by itself is victimless. It is the crime, the physical act, which generates the victim.
I maintain that the actions of the homosexuals created the same effect on their victims, the victim's family, friends and community as did the actions of the non-homosexuals.
I also maintain that any perceived difference in the two crimes mentioned was created in the minds of those who maintain an agenda, such as the agenda of the media, to which much of the media admitted: it is only news if it teaches a lesson (the specific lesson desired by those promoting homosexuality as normal, thereby asserting rights for homosexuals not accorded to heterosexuals).
The slippery slope is obvious: If thinking is punishable as evil when attached to an act, then it is also punishable without the act. And the thought can be presumed. And class differentiation in legislation is a march toward a class-differentiated society.
The Left is opening a page which they will ultimately regret, because the Left is a repository of great hatreds, mostly generated by their own fantasies, the fantasy of their own superiority, both intellectual and moral, over the inferior fly-over masses. They are the French Revolution in the making. If there is class hatred, it can be found in the Left quite easily. Should the thought be punishable by decades in prison? According to the Leftist, yes.
Then so be it.
But back to the issue of the Shepard murder. You say,
" But whatever, you are free to ignore that part and believe whatever makes you feel comfortable."
And you are quick to condemn based on controvertible evidence, none of which is physical. Hate crime laws are intended to legislate the morality of thoughts, according to the moral ideology of the Left. There is no palpable difference in the two crimes mentioned above; but the Left places a moral value on the one, and ignores the other. And then it legislates that moral value.
To be sure, it is not "hate" that is the target because many crimes are motivated by hatred. It is the class of the victim which is targeted, and targeted specifically in the legislation. It is targeted classism, legislated.
If generic hate were the target, there would be no legislation, because the inability to physically, conclusively prove hate without having to infer it as a second order extrapolation is seen to be absurd. No, it is not hate, it is the class of the victim which creates extra punishment.
That's why, when both the aggressor and the victim are in the protected class, the punishment still obtains.
I rather agree with Stan that "hate crimes" are poor laws.
All crimes of violence are hate crimes, and should be punished accordingly.
That being said, I find it incredibly ironic how he decries "class hatred" and simultaneously calls the entire Left spectrum of political ideologies of creating thought crimes, of being delusional, of being a step away from mass murderers.
If there is class hatred, the feeling of it emanating from Stan is palpable.
"The moral judgment being made is this: since the thought is so evil, then the thought itself should be punished, and punished by the amount of extra punishment attached to a crime.
But that can't be done".
In law, thought and motivation are taken into account and affect punishment often. Premeditation, mens rea, malice aforethought and so on.
Then I propose a thought experiment.
John and Jack pretend to be a Christians and goes to a prayer meeting and offer a Christian a lift home. During the trip, John yells "it's Christian awareness week!" and pulls out a gun a foot long.
They tie the Christian to a pole and taunt him about Christianity and beat him and then smash in his skull. Literally smash in his skull. Parts of skull mix with brain.
They go home and tell people that they killed a Christian because "you know how I feel about those Jesus-freaks"
When caught by the police they confess and say they panicked because the victim was Jesus-freak and they hate and are disgusted by them, Christians are weak and they deserved it.
Years later on TV, one of the killer's mother says they aren't anti-Christian and one of the killers says some of his friends are Christians.
In the next interview a killer says he did it because of his hatred of Jesus-freaks and he has no remorse. He says how Christians act makes the killing justified.
The law takes a crimes motivation into account. The killers want to plead manslaughter instead of murder. What could you say about the John and Jack's motivation?
Why not just refer to generic hatred? Why is class so important to you? Do you expect me to defend your thought experiment because you think that I am in the attacked class? Your thought experiment is classist, regardless of what class you designate as victim class.
But I'll bet that you would not approve of a race-based classist discrimination would you? Or would that depend on which race we would be discussing as the victim? Racism is classism, as is anti-semitism, which is the rising classist issue in Leftist circles. Discrimination against certain classes is acceptable, depending on which class is designated victim. That is one of the most onerous deficiencies of the Atheo-Left. And one of the great things about the internet is that you have no idea what class I actually fit into, do you?
So under what assumption of class, other than generic "Christian" which I do not claim, would you care to place me in order to properly manage me?
It appears that class is important to Atheo-Leftists because they want to be considered the elite class. But they know they cannot achieve eliteness in a classless society. So class mongering is endemic amongst the hopeful elites in order to force people to think in terms of classes rather than, say, mobility and class eradication.
Codifying the extra protection for classes of aberrant behaviors is a way to perpetuate classism, and to predefine the out-caste which objects to the elitist caste system. The supposed elites and the victim classes are thus mutually dependent and opposed to the out-caste; they are in fact co-dependent, and classist Victimology is institutionalized as their product.
Hey,
Stan said:
"Do you expect me to defend your thought experiment because you think that I am in the attacked class?"
I used "Christian" as an example because the word "religion" is next to "sexual orientation" in the law and since a large proportion of this country is Christian you would at least know someone who was Christian. (I don't know if you know anyone who is homosexual or if you did they would be very uncomfortable telling you but surely you know Christians and realize they are people too). I'm sorry that you're upset because you think I thought you were Christian but I never said that.
Stan said:
"Racism is classism, as is anti-Semitism, which is the rising classist issue in Leftist circles."
Obviously racism isn't classism literally. I don't know why you said this and am even more confused at your anti-Semitism jab.
Stan said:
"classist Victimology is institutionalized as their product."
I don't want to be rude but I don't think you understand the meaning of the words "classist" and "victimology". You probably meant victimization. Vicitomology is the study of victimization.
You spent a lot of time saying thought could never be taken into account in a legal sense and then ignored Slo Mo's stuff about "Premeditation, mens rea, malice aforethought and so on. "
You are right, I need to address these issues.
There is a lot of confusion about classifying, class and classism; there is a tendency to allow Marxist definitions of economic class to dominate, as if they own the terminology. But a look here...
classism.org/about-class
(I couldn't h ref this because html won't accept the word "class" in the A tag)
...at attempts to define class and classism shows that "social capital" and "cultural capital" are included, but then deeper down, are not included: a confused conception.
I see no reason not to call racism a subset of classism, where the classification is based on race.
The use of economic capital as a differentiator is confused in the site above, because the claim is that there is an economic continuum which masks the class divides, and most of us are placed along that continuum.
Classification in general terms doesn't work that way; either animals are warm-blooded or they are not, either things are alive or they are not, either mineral combinations are above the eutectic melting point or they are not, etc. When there is a continuum, then class divisions are arbitrary and not clear classification boundaries. In basic set theory, there is Q or !Q, not a continuum of "Qness". If there is a continuum, then set definitions don't apply unless a different criterion for separation into sets is found.
Here is an arbitrary class distinction: East Coast/West Coast vs. Fly-over areas.
Premeditation, mens rea, malice aforethought must be proven; as I understand it either evidence is required to conclusively demonstrate a mental state, or the mental state is to be imputed to the accused without evidence. These are to be used in proving intent; one definition goes thus:
actus reus: Unlawful killing of a human.
mens rea: malice aforethought (murder) (purpose or intent).
The difference it appears to me is that purpose or intent are sufficient to cause a crime to be imputed to a suspect, IFF there is other evidence to support the claims of purpose or intent. Hate is a purpose or intent. The crime of murder has the same characteristics, regardless of whether the motivation was robbery or hate or for hire.
But there is a difference, where a robbery-murder might be done by a hateful person yet the crime not motivated by hate, a hate-murder cannot be done by an unhateful robber.
In the first case, hate as a motivation would more likely to be attributed as causal, even if it were not causal.
Regardless of any of the above, it seems to me that the punishment should fit the crime, meaning the facts of the actual crime itself. Punishment based on only certain hatreds, not any or all hatreds, is discriminatory and will produce more hatred. It is even worse if hatred is defined by victim category, not by pure mental state.
Punishment based on reverse discrimination (such as favoring homosexuals who cannot receive hate crime status for crimes against non-homosexuals as was seen in the Dirkhising case) will not produce non-hatred, it will exacerbate it. The existence of a favored group will never produce non-hate in the non-favored group.
As for Victimology, the usage I have seen and use myself is this (#2):
victimology
1. the study of the ways in which the behavior of crime victims may have led to or contributed to their victimization
2. the claim that the problems of a person or group are the result of victimization
I hope this explains why I use "classism" to refer to discrimination against any category or class of humans, and why I use "victimology" to describe the use of the claim of "victimization" as an excuse to ignore responsibility within a target group.
Murder of ANYONE is still murder, regardless of motive. The points I still consider to be worthy of consideration in prosecution IMO are whether it was premeditated or an act of insanity.
Bigotry is a problem that cannot be 'corrected' by hate crime laws but in our educational system.
This was quite insightful and I enjoyed it. Thanks!
-Cammy
Post a Comment