This will probably start a shitstorm but I don't believe there should be any hate crime laws. The essence of any hate crime legislation is to declare that some lives are more important than others. That's bullshit. The crime committed should be what's considered when doling out the punishment.

It shouldn't matter if the victim is gay, straight, white or not; if someone commits a crime they should be punished equally. If it had been a straight person tied to a fence and tortured or a white person dragged behind a truck by a rope the perpetrators should be punished just as severely.

Taylor (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:17 am This will probably start a shitstorm but I don't believe there should be any hate crime laws. The essence of any hate crime legislation is to declare that some lives are more important than others. That's bullshit. The crime committed should be what's considered when doling out the punishment.

It shouldn't matter if the victim is gay, straight, white or not; if someone commits a crime they should be punished equally. If it had been a straight person tied to a fence and tortured or a white person dragged behind a truck by a rope the perpetrators should be punished just as severely.

Little miss liberal (Me) is in total agreement with you. Hate crime laws are discriminatory and in my opinion constitute a form of double jeopardy.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:59 am This really is a bad crime, but isn't 15 years pretty standard sentence for second-degree murder and 11 for manslaughter? (Assuming it wasn't planned and really was spurred due to their emotions at the time.)

I agree with A-1 though that it could be pursued as a hate crime.

With regard to the United States, it would depend entirely on the individual state. Some have defined terms, others have sliding scales based on histories, others use indeterminate sentences ranging to life. Some are very harsh, some not. In Minnesota, for example, 1st degree murder is now mandatory life without parole (used to have a parole option) On the other hand, vehicular homicide (drunken driving death) is capped at four years (should be a full murder charge in my opinion), with various other charges ranging up to 40 years. All determinate sentences require that 2/3 be served inside, 1/3 on parole. Other states are much more harsh, many less so.

Wow, not many people on the Boards lately...

Taylor (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:17 am This will probably start a shitstorm but I don't believe there should be any hate crime laws. The essence of any hate crime legislation is to declare that some lives are more important than others. That's bullshit. The crime committed should be what's considered when doling out the punishment.

It shouldn't matter if the victim is gay, straight, white or not; if someone commits a crime they should be punished equally. If it had been a straight person tied to a fence and tortured or a white person dragged behind a truck by a rope the perpetrators should be punished just as severely.

Well, the events leading up to a death do need to be considered when sentencing. There are pure accidents, then there is negligence, then there is heat of the moment acts, then there is premeditated killing.

The point with hate crime sentencing is to get the crimes treated as premeditated even if they were sort of heat of the moment -- this is because while the specific act may not have been premeditated, the desire to kill someone "like that" may have been premeditated.

I think you hit the nail on the head SplitDik .

It didn't necessarily have to be Gwen that died that day, but anyone who was transgendered and in that situation with that angry young man would have died in the same way.

We need to remember this, when trying to blame Gwen.

In my opinion, this situation was a hate crime for all intents and purposes.

thefraj (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:41 am I think you hit the nail on the head SplitDik .

It didn't necessarily have to be Gwen that died that day, but anyone who was transgendered and in that situation with that angry young man would have died in the same way.

We need to remember this, when trying to blame Gwen.

In my opinion, this situation was a hate crime for all intents and purposes.

I don't have a problem with defining something as a hate crime, and utilizing that as a factor in issuing sentence upon conviction. But I am opposed to it as a separate crime from the precipitating one. In effect that is charging one with a crime FOR being a bigot, as opposed to punishing the resultant behavior from the bigotry.

Kristoff - Well stated and exactly my line of thought.

. .

Taylor (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:17 am . The essence of any hate crime legislation is to declare that some lives are more important than others.

No, it is to declare that acts resulting from some motives are

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:23 pm more culpable than those resulting from others.

. . . The point with hate crime sentencing is to get the crimes treated as premeditated even if they were sort of heat of the moment -- this is because while the specific act may not have been premeditated, the desire t

o kill someone "like that" may have been premeditated.Right! It re

kristoff wrote: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:29 am cognises that haters are a particular threat to society because they are s

hort-fused as well as violent.

. . . But I am opposed to it as a separate crime from the precipitating one. . .The idea is to reach offenders whom local juries will not convict because of their bigotry.

.

Hate crime laws are thought crime laws. That is a slippery slope that will ineveitably lead to Big Brother.