Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
I'm glad that it was not labeled a hate crime but at the same time I'm conflicted because from the way the article reads and puts it out there as it sounds like there was some sort of hate/bias involved.
|
There was some sort of hate involved. People don't strangle, beat, and bury people for no reason. It's called a motive. The motive in this case is that these men felt threatened by the fact that this woman was natally (and i'm assuming from the article physiologically) male. We discriminate about motives all the time. it's often the difference between manslaughter and murder (or various degrees of each), for example. The mens rea, the mind set that produces criminal behavior is important in how we classify it. A murder for profit is considered a more serious crime than a crime of anger (regardless of premeditation). An assault that intends to keep people from voting is more likely to draw a stiff sentance than one that happens in the context of an argument over a game of darts. A sexual assault against a minor is more serious than one against an adult.
I'm sick to death of all this talk as if hate crimes laws were the only time we cared about motive or the idenity of the victim. Our justice system would be dumb as a brick if the only thing we cared about was the actions.