|
|
Congress voted to add crimes against gays to the list of recognized hate crimes. Will this be incentive to local police to be more aggressive in investigating and prosecutors to be more aggressive in prosecuting crimes against gay people? Or will it not make much difference in procedure due to budget shortfalls?
|
Posts:
1,911
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(73 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 9:35 PM
|
For the record,
I'm pretty sure I agree with prettywitty below on everything she said (although, to be sure, such heavy legalistic shit late at night has to be problematic for ANYONE, lawyer or NOT!).
That said, I think Host DonnaA might have an even BETTER point. Will it make any difference, due not only to her (WELL MADE) point of budget shortfalls, but how about intrenched social prejudices as well?
Not too many prosecutors in some of my previous jurisdictions willing to go out on the limb for NOR expend the funds for such prosecutions.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
1,131
Registered:
9/16/09
|
|
(72 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 9:18 PM
|
For the record, I believe that there are laws on the books to address whatever crime can happen to anyone. However, I recognize that depending on where you live, it is possible that local prosecutors may allow their own prejudice to influence their decision to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. In those cases, the federal authorities can prosecute.
On the other hand, hate crime legislation can be abused...
" November 19, 2009
BY BECKY SCHLIKERMAN
A Tinley Park bank teller has been charged with a hate crime, accused of pulling on a Muslim woman's headscarf while the two shopped in a grocery store, police said.
Valerie Kenney, of 16524 Evergreen Ave., was arrested Tuesday night over the Nov. 7 confrontation with Amal Abusumayah, police said.
Her bail was set Wednesday at $5,000, Cook County state's attorney's office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, and the Cook County Jail's Web site showed she was no longer in custody later in the day.
The charge against Kenney is a Class 4 felony, which carries a possible penalty of one to three years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000.
Abusumayah, 28, said she was shopping at Jewel, 17117 S. Harlem Ave., when Kenney walked up to her and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East."
Abusumayah, a stay-at-home mother of four young girls, ignored the reference to the Fort Hood shootings, but moments later, when Abusumayah was checking out, police said Kenney walked up behind her and pulled on Abusumayah's hijab, the headscarf some Muslim women wear in public.
"I was shaken up," Abusumayah said last week. "This is my dignity, and this is my religion."
Abusumayah, a native of Berwyn, did not want to comment Wednesday on Kenney's arrest.
Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he's pleased with the arrest.
"I'm happy to see the Tinley Park Police Department is not one where hate gets a free pass," he said. "No group of Americans is left behind when it comes to equality."
Rehab said he's still calling on the FBI to investigate the incident.
An FBI spokeswoman said she could not comment on the incident, but police sources said the FBI requested the Tinley Park police report on the incident.
This wasn't the only hate crime reported in Tinley Park just days after Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly shot and killed 13 people and injured 29 more at Fort Hood, Texas.
A family woke Nov. 8 to find derogatory terms about Arabs written on their home in the 8800 block of 172nd Street.
Police are still investigating that incident, Cmdr. Pat McCain said.
Meanwhile, Kenney is scheduled to appear in court next on Dec. 3, Simonton said.
Attempts to reach Kenney by phone and at her home were unsuccessful Wednesday."
In a bizarre twist, Tinley Park was just named one of the best towns in America to raise a family.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(71 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 5:48 PM
|
> > > I can concede the entire
> > > argument if someone official would squash
> the
> > name as
> > > inappropriate and just call it what it was.
>
> >
> > And what would that be?
>
> Maybe, Equality Under Law. The problem isn't the
> intent of the criminal. It's the intent of the
> prosecutor in NOT upholding their responsibilities to
> the public, equally.
That works for what I'm talking about, but I'm only talking about one aspect of the bill.
>
>
> > Would you prefer I call it a "Fags don't deserve
> to
> > live" crime? Sheesh, that's not hate?
>
> Com'on pretty, please don't accuse me of that kind of
> thinking, when that's NOT my message.
I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention. I was just pointing out that hate is hate, why call it something else? I wasn't suggesting you thought that way. Sorry again if it came across that way.
> Perhaps I
> wasn't clear = Whether you're attacked or killed
> because of nothing or everything, you
> deserve equal protection under law. The Hate Crime
> label suggests special treatment. That the subject's
> reasoning is important. It's not. The
> prosecutor's is (see above).
In the aspect of the bill to which I refer, yes.
But as to the rest, I don't think all crimes are the same.
> > I was pointing out the importance of the hate
> crime
> > bill in ensuring equality of justice for
> victims
> > discriminated against based on their sexual
> > orientation, separate from the other argument.
>
> We agree.
> > I don't get what you mean. Similar? It's no
> more
> > harsh than any other gay person that was beaten
> to
> > death for being gay. I don't know what else
> you
> > would consider "similar."
>
> Whether someone's beaten to death for their sexual
> orientation, or for the shoes on their feet, they're
> still dead and in a horrific way. That similar.
But that doesn't terrorize all who wear shoes, know what I mean?
> > Sort of, yes. The law ensures the bigotry of
> the
> > prosecutor cannot deny equal justice to gay
> victims
> > and their families.
>
> Agreed. But "Hate Crimes" as a label shifts the onus
> back onto the original act. That's not where it lies.
It just defines the types of crimes that fall under the law.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,012
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(70 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 5:23 PM
|
I see the point and I agree completely that there shouldn't be a need for hate crime laws if everyone is treated equally, defended and prosecuted equally, under the law.
Unfortunately that's not the reality, so the Byrd and Shepherd families spent years fighting for this legislation, to raise awareness and consciousness in the criminal justice system, and to draw attention and acknowledgment by society that these are intolerable acts.
The kind of terrorizing I'm talking about is personal, and has nothing to do with the perverted meaning of the word since 9/11. Hate crimes are meant to annihilate the spirit, if not the body, and do it in a way that terrorizes the individual. One method is stalking, which was best portrayed in the movie"Fatal Attraction" where the audience experienced being stalked by a menacing character. No matter where you go, there they are. Stalking wasn't always treated as a crime like it is now.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,689
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(69 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 3:42 PM
|
> Undercharging a murder as mansalughter for no other
> reason than that the victim was gay is not equality
> of application for existing laws.
Correct, but I think I addressed that later in the same post.
> > I can concede the entire
> > argument if someone official would squash the
> name as
> > inappropriate and just call it what it was.
>
> And what would that be?
Maybe, Equality Under Law. The problem isn't the intent of the criminal. It's the intent of the prosecutor in NOT upholding their responsibilities to the public, equally.
> Would you prefer I call it a "Fags don't deserve to
> live" crime? Sheesh, that's not hate?
Com'on pretty, please don't accuse me of that kind of thinking, when that's NOT my message. Perhaps I wasn't clear = Whether you're attacked or killed because of nothing or everything, you deserve equal protection under law. The Hate Crime label suggests special treatment. That the subject's reasoning is important. It's not. The prosecutor's is (see above).
> I was pointing out the importance of the hate crime
> bill in ensuring equality of justice for victims
> discriminated against based on their sexual
> orientation, separate from the other argument.
We agree.
> > "Hate Crimes" is a BAD label, because it shifts
> the
> > perception back onto the original crime,
> suggesting
> > that THAT act is somehow more harsh and than
> any
> > other similar crime. It's not.
>
> I don't get what you mean. Similar? It's no more
> harsh than any other gay person that was beaten to
> death for being gay. I don't know what else you
> would consider "similar."
Whether someone's beaten to death for their sexual orientation, or for the shoes on their feet, they're still dead and in a horrific way. That similar.
> Sort of, yes. The law ensures the bigotry of the
> prosecutor cannot deny equal justice to gay victims
> and their families.
Agreed. But "Hate Crimes" as a label shifts the onus back onto the original act. That's not where it lies.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(68 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 2:11 PM
|
> PW
>
> Why would you ignore the real root of the problem?
>
> When you say something like
>
> "good luck with that", all you're really doing is
> enabling the continued bad conduct you're ranting
> about in the first place.
No I'm not. I'm lauding being able to remedy that, thanks to the hate crimes bill.
>
> Just because the federal government has a "review" of
> a crime doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use it.
They will most often not use it, because they won't often need to now, thanks to the bill.
> Nor does it mean that the folks who are hired won't
> t miss something, nor will it mean that injustice as
> you define it won't still occur.
Now the law is in place for it to be remedied, and that was my point.
> It's something that can and should be addressed, but
> t folks like you won't allow it to happen.
"Folks like me," whatever that means, are happy that it has been addressed in the bill.
> You are attempting to legislate your opinion. You
> u aren't addressing the real issue.
No I'm not and yes I am.
--
Edited by prettywitty at 11/20/2009 11:12 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(67 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 2:03 PM
|
PW
Why would you ignore the real root of the problem?
When you say something like
"good luck with that", all you're really doing is enabling the continued bad conduct you're ranting about in the first place.
Just because the federal government has a "review" of a crime doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use it. Nor does it mean that the folks who are hired won't miss something, nor will it mean that injustice as you define it won't still occur.
And what it does mean is that for the same crime, with the same amount of passion involved, there are hugely different outcomes from the law. Just like using sentencing standards for crimes committed with guns. If I kill someone in the heat of an argument with a hammer, the likely hood is that I'd get a significantly different sentence than I would had I used a gun.
Same thing with a hate crime. If you're a graffiti artist tagging for your gang, you'll spend more jail time if you use a derogatory word about gays than you will if you threaten someone's life.
And really, is that your intent? How does that effect the crime in the first place? The kid in PR won't get his head back.
Using your example of how a prosecutor viewed the sexual overtone of a crime is the prosecutor's issue. It's something that can and should be addressed, but folks like you won't allow it to happen. (I believe there is a case now at the SCOTUS dealing with this) And when prosecutors are actually liable for their misconduct and their inactions, perhaps we'll not see the kind of miscarriage of justice you're referring to with cases going undercharged.
But don't forget that that is simply your opinion. You are attempting to legislate your opinion. You aren't addressing the real issue.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(66 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 12:43 PM
|
> PW
>
> I agree with Joe. What you believe the intent of the
> law to be isn't in actuality what the law will
> provide. I think it's abundantly clear that what
> you're attempting to do is regulate the conduct of
> the local constabulary or the DAs offices. In the
> same fashion as folks have in the commission of
> crimes when guns or drugs are involved. Another
> example being minimum sentencing.....That hasn't
> worked out so well, has it?
No, and it's not at all the same thing. I'd say apples and oranges, but apples and oranges are much more similar than hate crimes and mandatory minimums.
> Perhaps instead of trying to market to the gay
> community that these kinds of laws protect them, what
> you should really be marketing is that prosecution
> and police have been ineffective at their respective
> roles and have repeatedly underperformed.
I'm not marketing anything, so I suppose I will just ignore this, as it clearly doesn't apply to a word I've said.
> Perhaps it
> would be much easier if it were easier to pursue
> legal recourse against a prosecution team or the
> police for their inactions.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(65 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 12:15 PM
|
PW
I agree with Joe. What you believe the intent of the law to be isn't in actuality what the law will provide. I think it's abundantly clear that what you're attempting to do is regulate the conduct of the local constabulary or the DAs offices. In the same fashion as folks have in the commission of crimes when guns or drugs are involved. Another example being minimum sentencing.....That hasn't worked out so well, has it?
Perhaps instead of trying to market to the gay community that these kinds of laws protect them, what you should really be marketing is that prosecution and police have been ineffective at their respective roles and have repeatedly underperformed. Perhaps it would be much easier if it were easier to pursue legal recourse against a prosecution team or the police for their inactions.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(64 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 12:03 PM
|
> That's where I think we're extending the same poor
> perception. IMO, it's the name. Kinda like how the
> media has christianed the unofficial "Czars" into
> something unpleasant. Hate Crimes, have nothing to
> do with Hate between the victim or subject. The
> entire premise is silly and distracts from the goal =
> equality of application for existing laws upon / in
> support of all persons.
Undercharging a murder as mansalughter for no other reason than that the victim was gay is not equality of application for existing laws.
> I can concede the entire
> argument if someone official would squash the name as
> inappropriate and just call it what it was.
And what would that be?
> > Had the hate crime legislation been in place,
> the
> > Feds could have taken the case and prosecuted
> > accordingly. It protects gay victims and their
> > families from being discriminated against in
> the
> > system if localities undercharge or refuse to
> charge.
> > Equal justice.
>
> Then it's not about the Crime itself. The original
> act is not a Hate Crime,
Would you prefer I call it a "Fags don't deserve to live" crime? Sheesh, that's not hate?
> and labeling it so is what
> draws out people's inherent resistance to the very
> idea of opinion being a grounds for more severe
> treatment.
Not sure what you mean here.
I think it is clearly grounds for harsher punishment for the terror it strikes in the community, but I understand where you are coming from with that argument. But I wasn't actually arguing that.
I was pointing out the importance of the hate crime bill in ensuring equality of justice for victims discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, separate from the other argument.
> "Hate Crimes" is a BAD label, because it shifts the
> perception back onto the original crime, suggesting
> that THAT act is somehow more harsh and than any
> other similar crime. It's not.
I don't get what you mean. Similar? It's no more harsh than any other gay person that was beaten to death for being gay. I don't know what else you would consider "similar."
> The prosecutor is
> just too bigoted to ensure equal protection under
> law.
>
>
> Is that a fair interpretation?
Sort of, yes. The law ensures the bigotry of the prosecutor cannot deny equal justice to gay victims and their families.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,689
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(63 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 11:50 AM
|
> Hi joe...
Hi pretty
> I mentioned a case here a while back wherein a gay
> man was beaten to death by a straight man, because
> the gay guy winked at him. The prosecutor declined
> to prosecute for murder, and only for manslaughter,
> saying that a wink from a gay man was enough
> provocation for a reasonable person to lose control
> (the standard).
That's where I think we're extending the same poor perception. IMO, it's the name. Kinda like how the media has christianed the unofficial "Czars" into something unpleasant. Hate Crimes, have nothing to do with Hate between the victim or subject. The entire premise is silly and distracts from the goal = equality of application for existing laws upon / in support of all persons. I can concede the entire argument if someone official would squash the name as inappropriate and just call it what it was.
> Had the hate crime legislation been in place, the
> Feds could have taken the case and prosecuted
> accordingly. It protects gay victims and their
> families from being discriminated against in the
> system if localities undercharge or refuse to charge.
> Equal justice.
Then it's not about the Crime itself. The original act is not a Hate Crime, and labeling it so is what draws out people's inherent resistance to the very idea of opinion being a grounds for more severe treatment. It's about subsequent criminal / negligent misconduct by prosecutors.
"Hate Crimes" is a BAD label, because it shifts the perception back onto the original crime, suggesting that THAT act is somehow more harsh and than any other similar crime. It's not. The prosecutor is just too bigoted to ensure equal protection under law.
Is that a fair interpretation?
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(62 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 10:44 AM
|
Hi joe...
I can see both sides of this the way you two are having this discussion, but here is why I think hate crime legislation is invaluable.
I mentioned a case here a while back wherein a gay man was beaten to death by a straight man, because the gay guy winked at him. The prosecutor declined to prosecute for murder, and only for manslaughter, saying that a wink from a gay man was enough provocation for a reasonable person to lose control (the standard).
Had the hate crime legislation been in place, the Feds could have taken the case and prosecuted accordingly. It protects gay victims and their families from being discriminated against in the system if localities undercharge or refuse to charge. Equal justice.
--
Edited by prettywitty at 11/20/2009 7:44 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,689
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(61 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 20, 2009 9:03 AM
|
G,
> If I'm living in peace, but you live across the
> street and wake up to slashed tires and hate graffiti
> sprayed on your house, I want the police to give you
> their undivided attention to catch the terrorists.
> That's what hate crimes are, acts of terrorism.
> .
We agree that order needs to be maintained (not just for control but to foster trust), I think we just disagree on the method. For example, I don't believe there is such a thing as terrorism. I think that we lost SO much momentum when we chaulked-up the events of 911 to an ethereal menace called "terrorism". A law enforcement action would, IMO, have been tremendously more effective than some undefined War on Terror.
In your example. Someone destroyed my property (tires) and threatened my life (graffiti). There are laws for that.
> you will be getting better than equal
> protection under the law, and rightly so, bcz you
> need it, and I don't.
I disagree. That's not better than equal, because the circumstances are not equal. It's incident-driven. The cops are providing me the exact same service (should) and adding the necessary investigation, not because someone's opinion of me differs from their opinion of you, they're doing it because I am a victim of a crime where you would not be. Your property is not damaged or your life threatened. Regardless of the subject's or the victim's creed, color, or gender, the law should be equally applied.
> The press will show up and we will be ashamed that
> this is happening in our neighborhood.
That's a good thing, but it's not a law. It's reaffirms our purpose and values, but it doesn't worsen or lessen the actual crime because it is subject to perception. Subjectivity. Law needs to be beyond that common failing.
> In our neck
> of the woods where we have tightly knit neighborhoods
> and know everybody and take care of each other, we'll
> take care of you by making sure you have a safe place
> to stay, and we'll set up a 24-hour neighborhood
> watch bcz the police can't do it all
Good stuff, too. Not laws.
> and we'll
> continue the practice even after the terrorists are
> caught. Will this prevent repeat offenses or new
> acts of terrorism? You betcha.
Great community building and a practical way to bond, but that's the effect of people acting within legal bounds, not at the dictate of legal commands. I think Hate Crimes discriminate against Stupid People. Not inferior people, just stupid.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,012
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(60 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 19, 2009 6:48 PM
|
Joe,
If I'm living in peace, but you live across the street and wake up to slashed tires and hate graffiti sprayed on your house, I want the police to give you their undivided attention to catch the terrorists. That's what hate crimes are, acts of terrorism. Iow, you will be getting better than equal protection under the law, and rightly so, bcz you need it, and I don't.
The press will show up and we will be ashamed that this is happening in our neighborhood. In our neck of the woods where we have tightly knit neighborhoods and know everybody and take care of each other, we'll take care of you by making sure you have a safe place to stay, and we'll set up a 24-hour neighborhood watch bcz the police can't do it all, and we'll continue the practice even after the terrorists are caught. Will this prevent repeat offenses or new acts of terrorism? You betcha.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(59 of 73)
Re: Congress gives gays hate crime protection
Nov 19, 2009 2:18 PM
|
Joe,
I totally agree, a law doesn't preclude the breaking of it.
It does seem that pointing that out makes folks upset. It also seems that folks are shocked that somehow we aren't "grateful" for their efforts to "protect" us.
And fundamentally, the issue is that any law applies equally to all people. Period. There aren't or shouldn't be "super" rights. Nor should there be "super" penalties
You'll have to excuse me, I'm not aware of the "attacks" on the many for the conduct of the few comment you made. I'd suggest that it will only be the "few" that actually commit atrocious crimes.
As for hypocrisy, how so? What, specifically do you feel is hypocritical?
|
|
|
|
|
