Obama expands hate crime law to include crimes against homosexuals

[Baraka_Guru]

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill
By Jeff Zeleny
New York Times

President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday, telling an audience at the White House that the provision would “strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.”

The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

“Prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes,” Mr. Obama said, speaking in the East Room of the White House at an evening reception, “Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.”

The hate crimes measure was included in a defense spending bill, which Democratic leaders in Congress intentionally did in an effort to keep Republicans from blocking the legislation. The legislation had been under consideration in Congress for years. It was named in memory of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student who was murdered 11 years ago.

“You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear,” Mr. Obama said. “You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts.”

The audience at the White House included Denis and Judy Shepard, the parents of Matthew, and the family of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who championed the legislation for years, but died before the bill was ultimately passed.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Basically, the law has been expanded to include crimes targeted against people based on their sexual orientation. This is a bill that Bush helped block previously.

Canada passed something similar in 2004.

Do you think this is something that will pass quietly, or will there be implications and problems down the road? i.e., Will the anti-gay crowd have to change how they address gay issues?

[Willravel]

It's a great victory for something that should be covered by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th. It's a shame they had to attach it to Afghanistan legislation in order to pass it.

[Stare At The Sun]

Hate crimes are silly, but if the law is here to stay, this should be included.

[remy1492]

I am of the mindset that ANY crime, is a hate crime if its done towards a person. (vs stealing or vandalism etc...., non personal crimes).

I cannot figure out what, in western society, is pushing the "HATE" part of the legislation. Rape is rape, murder is murder. Some will say that if its for a REASON, like race, sex, etc... then its a HATE crime. But arent all crimes for a reason?

The logic overwhelms me. Perhaps there is some other reason I am missing because pretty soon, EVERY reason will be legislated. Crime against a person that is 5LBs heavier than you? HATE crime. Crime against somebody shorter than you? HATE crime. Crime because the person wears opposite gender clothes every other Friday? HATE crime.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by remy1492

I am of the mindset that ANY crime, is a hate crime if its done towards a person. (vs stealing or vandalism etc...., non personal crimes).

I cannot figure out what, in western society, is pushing the "HATE" part of the legislation. Rape is rape, murder is murder. Some will say that if its for a REASON, like race, sex, etc... then its a HATE crime. But arent all crimes for a reason?

The logic overwhelms me. Perhaps there is some other reason I am missing because pretty soon, EVERY reason will be legislated. Crime against a person that is 5LBs heavier than you? HATE crime. Crime against somebody shorter than you? HATE crime. Crime because the person wears opposite gender clothes every other Friday? HATE crime.

me too. i'm confused by the label. IMO it doesn't make it better or worse that it was done to a person of a particular color or sexual orientation.

[Plan9]

Oh, look... a few middle class white people talking about hate crimes. Just dandy. Hardy-har-har.

[samcol]

I totally disagree with this legislation. A crime should never be worse based on the victims (or killer's) race, religion, sexuality, gender, political affiliation or whatever. The things that should matter is if the crime was pre meditated, an accident, a serial kill, or a moment of rage, but not color of skin, religion etc.

This is a giant step in the wrong direction.

[Plan9]

That's what some say about gay marriage.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Plan9

That's what some say about gay marriage.

Nice gay marriage tangent, but we don't even know what you're referring to in the post above.

[Plan9]

Fixed it for ya.

[Baraka_Guru]

Hate crimes are about degrees of wrongdoing. Just as there are degrees to other laws.

It's one thing to murder someone because of a botched robbery, because of revenge for something, etc.; it's another thing to murder someone because "he was a fucking faggot."

This law protects specific groups because of specific crimes targeted against them. Doesn't it seem natural enough?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Plan9

Fixed it for ya.

I still can't figure out what you are getting at

[Willravel]

Hate crimes are crimes that are much more likely to be repeated.

It's not rocket science.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Hate crimes are crimes that are much more likely to be repeated.

It's not rocket science.

really? so a person with a rap sheet of theft and burglary of middle income homes isn't hating on the middle income families right? It's just not more likely to be repeated.

[Rekna]

I think this is a great thing. While I agree that all crimes are hate crimes there is something particularly bad about crimes that are targeted upon them because of their gender, race, sexual orientation etc. These are cases where people hate someone because of who they are and not what they do or have done. It is about time this passed, i hope Matthew Shepard is smiling in heaven.

[Xerxys]

Originally Posted by samcol

I totally disagree with this legislation. A crime should never be worse based on the victims (or killer's) race, religion, sexuality, gender, political affiliation or whatever. The things that should matter is if the crime was pre meditated, an accident, a serial kill, or a moment of rage, but not color of skin, religion etc.

This is a giant step in the wrong direction.

Why am I agreeing with this. I am sick of the mindset that people feel they need special treatment because of some social difference. Why can't cases just be dealt with on the individual level? Marry who your going to marry and kill who your going to kill, just be aware that the consequences will be the same regardless.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Why am I agreeing with this. I am sick of the mindset that people feel they need special treatment because of some social difference. Why can't cases just be dealt with on the individual level? Marry who your going to marry and kill who your going to kill, just be aware that the consequences will be the same regardless.

Exactly case by case and a jury trial we don't need new laws imo.

[KellyC]

So do hate crimes impose harsher punishments?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

really? so a person with a rap sheet of theft and burglary of middle income homes isn't hating on the middle income families right? It's just not more likely to be repeated.

Why would rational actors engage in burglary? Because either jobs are too scarce or jobs available are less efficient than burglary. It's an economic issue, not a "hate" issue. The situation can be rectified with stern punishment and providing an economic environment where burglary simply isn't the most efficient method of income. You can reduce recidivism for burglars (that don't suffer from kleptomania, which would need clinical treatment) significantly with the right economic conditions.

What can be done, economically, to make homosexuals less offensive to fundamentalist religious zealots? Nothing. The only way to deal with this is to make the punishment for the crime so great that it will dissuade the bigot from engaging in illegal activity motivated by their hatred.

It truly is simple.

[robot_parade]

Ok, if you don't understand something, like hate crimes legislation, at least read the wikipedia article. Disagreeing is one thing, but at least try to understand the other side's point of view.

I, for one, am generally in favor of hate crimes laws, for pretty much the reasons summarized in the wikipedia article. Hate *speech* laws are a much trickier matter. In the case of this legislation (as I understand it - I haven't done extensive research, I'm afraid), the effect is that crimes that are driven by hatred for a given race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, can be prosecuted on a federal level with harsher sentencing. This doesn't created 'protected classes' because the crime is the same whether a person is male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight. The only requirement is that one of the aforementioned categories be part of the motivation for the crime.

[dippin]

First of all, I am always amazed at how little people know about things that they like to speak so strongly about. Hate crime legislation is not based on race, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim, but on the intent of the attacker. So this BS about "a crime shouldnt be worse because of the victim's race, etc" is simply misinformation. Even in the strictest hate crimes legislations the determinant is not simply race, gender, etc. but the intent. That is, hate crime is not a white man killing a black man. It is a white man killing a black man because of his race. And penalty enhancements based on intent are already present throughout our legislation for other crimes.

And it is not only restricted to murder. And it is not only restricted to minorities. As long as one of the categories included there are considered to be the motivation for the crime, the person can be charged with a hate crime.

Hate crime legislation exists because an assault charge where one person beats up another because he cheated on poker is a qualitatively different crime than one where one person beats another solely because of the color of his skin, or his religion, or so on, and as such needs to be treated differently under the law.


Besides that, there are two additional important points:
- one, that has already been made, which is the recidivism rate. We've already have all sorts of stipulations for crimes where the offender has a high likelihood to re offend, hate crimes legislation recognizes that fact as it relates to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

- As much as people like to believe that we live in this abstract world where prejudice doesn't exist, the fact has been that our justice system is biased. In fact, prejudice has often been used as a defense, a mitigating factor in sentencing or in reducing the charge to a "heat of the moment" crime. The other day a man who killed a gay man was sentenced to 180 days in prison after using the "gay panic" defense.

So the whole point of the legislation is to address intent. We already do that when we discuss the different degrees of crime, the legislation merely adds something regarding prejudice.

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by KellyC

So do hate crimes impose harsher punishments?

That is the only reason I would see this being useful for. If you force some judge who thinks all gays are sinners and deserve to die to sentence a backwoods guy to XX number of years, I could see it being beneficial.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dippin

So the whole point of the legislation is to address intent. We already do that when we discuss the different degrees of crime, the legislation merely adds something regarding prejudice.

So what you're saying is that it was okay before to commit these crimes like because the INTENT not addressed and this law encompases that making it no longer okay.

The crime listed below along with crime against Matthew Shepard who was tied to a fence, beat and left to die because of his was gay, and James Byrd, a Texas man who was brutally murdered by being dragged behind a pickup truck because he was African American, all were okay before because well, they weren't crimes since they involved the hate as the intent.

Two years after son's death, mother finds solace in hate crimes bill - CNN.com

"My son was murdered as he was leaving a bar in Greenville, South Carolina," the 48-year-old woman told CNN about her son, Sean, who was 20 when he came face-to-face with what she calls a hate crime. "He walked outside the bar and there was three people sitting in a car outside and they called him over to ask him for a cigarette."

It was 3:45 a.m. on May 16, 2007, and her underage son was legally drunk, but not so much that he couldn't give them the cigarette. He did so, then turned to walk away. He did not get far, she said.

"As he was walking away, the guy in the back seat got out and walked over to Sean and called him a faggot and punched him in the face."

The men got back into their car and drove off, leaving Sean on the ground, his brain separated from his brain stem, she said.

Fifteen minutes later, the 18-year-old assailant called one of the women whom Sean had been with in the bar and left a message on her cell phone.

"You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up he owes me 500 dollars for my broken hand," the message said.

Sean was taken to Greenville Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced brain dead 17 hours later.

So your logic to me, in it's simplest form means, since the intent was hate the crime itself was okay before.

In your explanation of using the court system, how about the DA did a shitty job and didn't prosecute the actual crime properly?

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So what you're saying is that it was okay before to commit these crimes like because the INTENT not addressed and this law encompases that making it no longer okay.

The crime listed below along with crime against Matthew Shepard who was tied to a fence, beat and left to die because of his was gay, and James Byrd, a Texas man who was brutally murdered by being dragged behind a pickup truck because he was African American, all were okay before because well, they weren't crimes since they involved the hate as the intent.

Two years after son's death, mother finds solace in hate crimes bill - CNN.com


So your logic to me, in it's simplest form means, since the intent was hate the crime itself was okay before.

In your explanation of using the court system, how about the DA did a shitty job and didn't prosecute the actual crime properly?

this is ridiculous, cyn. I'm really surprised at this stretch coming from you.

dippin pretty much encapsulated my thinking on hate crimes legislation and why it is of benefit to our justice system. I always find the best way to comprehend the difference between crime and hate crime is to look at one of the less violent forms of crime that can incorporate hate and that is vandalism. Is it not obvious that there is a broad difference in intent between someone who spray paints graffiti on a subway car and someone who spray paints swastikas in a Jewish cemetary? Think about the difference in mindset behind each act. If you believe the latter should be punished more severely than the former, then you cannot not carry it through to punishment for the perpetration of violent crimes. They are NOT the same thing.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So what you're saying is that it was okay before to commit these crimes like because the INTENT not addressed and this law encompases that making it no longer okay.

The crime listed below along with crime against Matthew Shepard who was tied to a fence, beat and left to die because of his was gay, and James Byrd, a Texas man who was brutally murdered by being dragged behind a pickup truck because he was African American, all were okay before because well, they weren't crimes since they involved the hate as the intent.

Are you serious? I don't see where he even implied that. Why would anyone think that?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

this is ridiculous, cyn. I'm really surprised at this stretch coming from you.

dippin pretty much encapsulated my thinking on hate crimes legislation and why it is of benefit to our justice system. I always find the best way to comprehend the difference between crime and hate crime is to look at one of the less violent forms of crime that can incorporate hate and that is vandalism. Is it not obvious that there is a broad difference in intent between someone who spray paints graffiti on a subway car and someone who spray paints swastikas in a Jewish cemetary? Think about the difference in mindset behind each act. If you believe the latter should be punished more severely than the former, then you cannot not carry it through to punishment for the perpetration of violent crimes. They are NOT the same thing.

Living in a very Jewish community, I get the vandalism aspect of it, since, most of us in the neighborhood can see it's affects firsthand as a Jewish person walks past a swastika or the defacing of one of the oldest synagogues in the US in our neighborhood. I get it for the vandalism aspect, I get extreme disconnect when I see it applied to crimes where there is already a sufficient description and punishment to mete out for the actual crime committed. So thus the murder and assaults of the examples I put before in my post are sufficient crimes to punish offenders. To say that the intent of hate for those crimes makes the crime "worse" is in effect then reducing the same crime if it were to happen without the hateful intent.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you serious? I don't see where he even implied that. Why would anyone think that?

- As much as people like to believe that we live in this abstract world where prejudice doesn't exist, the fact has been that our justice system is biased. In fact, prejudice has often been used as a defense, a mitigating factor in sentencing or in reducing the charge to a "heat of the moment" crime. The other day a man who killed a gay man was sentenced to 180 days in prison after using the "gay panic" defense.

gay panic defense.... the judge and DA should have not accepted that as a reasonable defense.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

this is ridiculous, cyn. I'm really surprised at this stretch coming from you.

dippin pretty much encapsulated my thinking on hate crimes legislation and why it is of benefit to our justice system. I always find the best way to comprehend the difference between crime and hate crime is to look at one of the less violent forms of crime that can incorporate hate and that is vandalism. Is it not obvious that there is a broad difference in intent between someone who spray paints graffiti on a subway car and someone who spray paints swastikas in a Jewish cemetary? Think about the difference in mindset behind each act. If you believe the latter should be punished more severely than the former, then you cannot not carry it through to punishment for the perpetration of violent crimes. They are NOT the same thing.

I love the terrible examples people are providing. Lets compare spray painting subways to defacing graveyards? WTF! These aren't even in the same ballpark.

Lets try something relevant: spray painting a swastika or spray painting an anti-obama image, or an anti-Bush image, or an anti-gay marriage image, or an anti abortion, or pro abortion. Suddenly one or the other can become racist, or homophobic or whatever.

Don't you see how easily this can be politicized? Depending on the political views of the cop and prosecutor you could easily see a easier or worse sentence coming about.

Lets prosecute the ACT of spray painting the subway and not use the subjective views of the cop and prosecutor to punish the act.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

gay panic defense.... the judge and DA should have not accepted that as a reasonable defense.

This is true, but it has little to do with my complaint, which is that dippin isn't implying that hate crimes are to make up for a complete lack of crime. It's about degrees of wrongdoing.

His example here was merely to demonstrate how bad the problem can get.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This is true, but it has little to do with my complaint, which is that dippin isn't implying that hate crimes are to make up for a complete lack of crime. It's about degrees of wrongdoing.

His example here was merely to demonstrate how bad the problem can get.

This is why I object to it. You're stating that it's degrees of wrong doing. It's already wrong. There's already an intention or unintentional, such as murder versus manslaughter.

But really, no one knows for sure that hate is the motivator, it isn't easily detected 100% of the time. It's easy to pick out from a white to black, straight to gay, but what about El Salvadorian to Mexican, Indian to Pakistani? Can you tell when the offended and the offender are both the same color?

Did you know that most of the time, those are hate crimes too? Iraqi Sunni to Iraqi Shiite and Serbian to Croat, we're accustomed to those in some degree because we are media induced to see them as such. But in our courts will we be fair and even handed to deciding which is and what is a hate crime?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

This is why I object to it. You're stating that it's degrees of wrong doing. It's already wrong. There's already an intention or unintentional, such as murder versus manslaughter.

It's not just about being wrong or right; there are degrees of wrongdoing. If I stole a car, why would I be treated differently than if I stole a pair of shoes? I could be sentenced for a decade or so compared to a few months, if at all. Why not just charge me for being wrong? Why would it matter if it were a car? All I did was steal something. Why not have some generic "stealing stuff" law that applies to anyone who steals anything? Maybe set every type of stealing crime at three months or something.

The same thing applies to hate crimes. It's not just an assault if I go after a gay man because he's gay. It's assault and a hate crime. I targeted a specific group. It's not random. It's more wrong than a random thing. I have purposely assaulted him because of what he is.

But really, no one knows for sure that hate is the motivator, it isn't easily detected 100% of the time. It's easy to pick out from a white to black, straight to gay, but what about El Salvadorian to Mexican, Indian to Pakistani? Can you tell when the offended and the offender are both the same color?

Well, of course, for it to be charged as a hate crime, there needs to be evidence.

Did you know that most of the time, those are hate crimes too? Iraqi Sunni to Iraqi Shiite and Serbian to Croat, we're accustomed to those in some degree because we are media induced to see them as such. But in our courts will we be fair and even handed to deciding which is and what is a hate crime?

I imagine it would have to be a clear case of intent. We hear the cases where gay men are lured to someone's home where they are beaten or killed. With enough evidence based on past and current factors, it may be deemed a hate crime. If a Sunni Iraqi-Canadian attacked a Shiite Iraqi-Canadian because they were Shiite, there would be a very good chance they would be charged for a hate crime in Canada if there were enough evidence.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by samcol

I love the terrible examples people are providing. Lets compare spray painting subways to defacing graveyards? WTF! These aren't even in the same ballpark.

Lets try something relevant: spray painting a swastika or spray painting an anti-obama image, or an anti-Bush image, or an anti-gay marriage image, or an anti abortion, or pro abortion. Suddenly one or the other can become racist, or homophobic or whatever.

Don't you see how easily this can be politicized? Depending on the political views of the cop and prosecutor you could easily see a easier or worse sentence coming about.

Lets prosecute the ACT of spray painting the subway and not use the subjective views of the cop and prosecutor to punish the act.

No, they are not the same thing, I agree. That is my point. BUT, both of the crimes (by their actions) are vandalism. Are you agreeing that they should be punished according to their intent, or not? What if we compare vandalism in a Jewish cemetary that is not racially motivated to vandalism that is anti-Semitic? Do you feel they are the same crime. Perhaps that is a more relevant comparison.

I don't get your other comments. The legislation does not cover political opinions. Or are you suggesting that, by including gays and lesbians in this legislation, we have formally breached the 'slippery slope.' I don't buy it.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Hate crimes are about degrees of wrongdoing. Just as there are degrees to other laws.

It's one thing to murder someone because of a botched robbery, because of revenge for something, etc.; it's another thing to murder someone because "he was a fucking faggot."

This law protects specific groups because of specific crimes targeted against them. Doesn't it seem natural enough?

so that whole 'equal protection under the law' deal we have in the constitution, that can be thrown away now? specific groups of people get better protection because they are special?

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Willravel

The only way to deal with this is to make the punishment for the crime so great that it will dissuade the bigot from engaging in illegal activity motivated by their hatred.

It truly is simple.

so it's simple to think that someone who has a hatred for (insert special group here) is going to be deterred from committing murder because he'll get double life instead of just life?

[Redlemon]

The argument in this thread seems to be about whether or not there should be any hate crime legislation. According to the article

The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

So, given that hate crime legislation exists, should it cover sexual orientation? I would say "yes".

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so that whole 'equal protection under the law' deal we have in the constitution, that can be thrown away now? specific groups of people get better protection because they are special?

Equal protection under the law is more important than ever. You see, this new expansion of the hate crime law is a way of ensuring that gays are protected as equal members of society compared to heterosexuals. Before this, there was no particular consequence for picking out homosexuals and targeting them with a crime. I don't know of any hate crimes where homosexuals are attacking heterosexuals for being straight. Let me know when it becomes a problem.

Hate crimes law isn't about offering "better protection" for "special people." It's about protecting groups that are targeted for specific reasons related to what they are religiously, racially, ethnically, sexually, etc.

Do you think the gay community felt equally protected before this law was passed?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Equal protection under the law is more important than ever. You see, this new expansion of the hate crime law is a way of ensuring that gays are protected as equal members of society compared to heterosexuals.

before this piece of legislation, was it against the law to kill a man because he was gay?

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Before this, there was no particular consequence for picking out homosexuals and targeting them with a crime.

so you're saying there was no penalty or violation of law to kill a homosexual?

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Hate crimes law isn't about offering "better protection" for "special people." It's about protecting groups that are targeted for specific reasons related to what they are religiously, racially, ethnically, sexually, etc.

you really don't realize that what you've said above is completely contradictory, do you?

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Do you think the gay community felt equally protected before this law was passed?

if a gay person was killed, and their killer convicted, did the killer pay a penalty?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

before this piece of legislation, was it against the law to kill a man because he was gay?

so you're saying there was no penalty or violation of law to kill a homosexual?

you really don't realize that what you've said above is completely contradictory, do you?

if a gay person was killed, and their killer convicted, did the killer pay a penalty?

Very well said.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

before this piece of legislation, was it against the law to kill a man because he was gay?

As far as I know, no. It was only against the law to kill a man.

so you're saying there was no penalty or violation of law to kill a homosexual?

No. There was only a penalty or violation for killing.

you really don't realize that what you've said above is completely contradictory, do you?

You really don't realize it's not.

if a gay person was killed, and their killer convicted, did the killer pay a penalty?

Yes, a penalty for killing.

Have you missed the point completely?

Originally Posted by samcol

Very well said.

I disagree. It was a sloppy attempt at the Socratic Method.

[roachboy]

i'm unclear about the grounds for objecting to the idea of hate crimes as well. on this particular matter, i think red lemon is right, really: if the construct exists it makes no sense not to extend it to include crimes motivated by homophobia.

intent is obviously the key, but in the sense of a legal definition of intent. hate crimes are directed against entire categories of people, even as they are visited upon individuals who happen to occupy a position, one way or another, within that category. so you can look at this in two ways: one would be to say that all that matters is the individual action. this seems to be the conservative position. so the individual action may or may not have been motivated by racism--and the motivation would be important i suppose--but really what would matter is the particular machinery involved that resulted in the particular action. so the underlying idea i suppose is that you would move from the particular to the general.

the other way of seeing it would be to say that racism or homophobic crimes move from the general to the particular. they depart from, refer to and are structured by---even if that structuring is an *aspect* of the decision chain that results in a particular action---broader contexts in which racism or homophobia are articulated and situated as legitimate.

from there the idea seems obvious---and this isn't really saying much that dippin did not already say---hate crime is a mechanism within a legal system geared around individual actions taken in isolation to address the outcomes of political contexts which are understood by most people as being unacceptable, both in themselves and in their (real and potential) consequences. that's why the category exists.

a possible avenue for the debate to head down from here is the usual thing that lines up conservatives who like to pretend there is no racism, there is no homophobia on the one hand and other folk against them. there's also a problem that some folk dislike thinking in aggregates and prefer to pretend there's only individuals. but that seems to me a fantasy-space. but at least it's a different debate.

you could say that any definition of anything at all groups phenomena. that there is a construct "murderer" groups people who are convicted of murder. any category does that, legal or not. its what categories do.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

As far as I know, no. It was only against the law to kill a man.

No. There was only a penalty or violation for killing.

You really don't realize it's not.

Yes, a penalty for killing.

Have you missed the point completely?

I disagree. It was a sloppy attempt at the Socratic Method.

so before, it was illegal to kill a man. Now, it's extra illegal to kill a man because he's gay and you'll be punished more, but this law doesn't provide extra protection to special groups, it only protects groups who are targeted because of extra-specific 'intentions'.

so did YOU miss the point completely or do you not understand the Socratic method?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so before, it was illegal to kill a man. Now, it's extra illegal to kill a man because he's gay and you'll be punished more, but this law doesn't provide extra protection to special groups, it only protects groups who are targeted because of extra-specific 'intentions'.

It's not extra protection when the others in question have no equivalent need for it.