Hating On Hate Crimes

While African-Americans and Latinos did not cause the Prop 8 result, there could have been better outreach into those communities by Gay activists before the vote. Younger African-Americans and Latinos voted in support of the Gay community.
.
Older voters were less supportive. The religious community is strong among both African-Americans and Latinos, especially in older voters. This type of outreach can only be beneficial.

While I applaud the effort, it is hard to see how this particular divide is going to be healed unless the various churches are willing to meet the gay community at least part way.

Actually a pretty decent post from you for once Amy. Kudos.

The whole concept of hate crimes have some serious flaws. First, there is the problem of selective enforcement. Last winter, a lesbian woman was viciously assaulted and raped in California. One of the evidentiary points that allowed the hate crime enhancement was the fact that the attackers made reference to her sexual preference during the attack. Well, what about references to a victim's race during a sexual assault? That happens, and a hate crime enhancement is never sought in such cases. And this is in addition to the viewpoint, held by many, that minorities should not be the subject of a hate crime prosecution. Perhaps many of you noticed that the report on prison rape came out this week. One of the glaring omissions in this report was the failure to mention the racial component of many many prison rapes (a few years ago Human Rights Watch put out a report that specifically examined this issue). If comprehensive studies ignore the issue of race in the prison setting, can we really expect that hate crimes are going to be prosecuted evenhandedly?
.
Second, although I am generally in favor of anything that makes a violent crime subject to a harsher penalty, hate crime enhancements for serious crimes are somewhat beside the point. I don't really care about that, though, since I like harsh penalties for violent criminals. Where hate crime enhancements make sense is for "low-level" crimes. For example, if I love IU and hate UK and burn a "Go Hoosiers" into someone's lawn, that's different from burning a "N---- go home" into someone's lawn.
.
Third, be careful what you wish for. The stereotypical hate crime offenders are those lunatic home-invaders who killed a Hispanic man (they were arrested a couple of days ago). But the DOJ numbers don't really bear that out. Many gay-bashers are minorities, and you'll have, in some people's minds, the incongruity of using hate crimes legislation to prosecute minorities.

So it might have surprised some people...
.
AS,
.
Again, the only thing I find surprising is your surprise.
You know very well that religion and right-wing authoritarianism and bigotry are not synonymous. Why then do you always treat it as such breaking news whenever that simple fact gets illustrated.

AS: Thank you for a new thread. Gays AND religion too. I wonder how long it will take the anti-gay rights people to realize that the only difference between gay and straight is the choice of partners? The same goals and ambitions are shared by everybody. Hating someone solely because of their choice of a sexual partner is just plain ignorance.

Stated another way, I think your efforts at breaking stereotypes have the unfortunate effect of reinforcing them.

I never thought I'd be so happy to see an AS thread.

"Hating someone solely because of their choice of a sexual partner is just plain ignorance."
.
Finally, something we can all agree on.

You know very well that religion and right-wing authoritarianism and bigotry are not synonymous. Why then do you always treat it as such breaking news whenever that simple fact gets illustrated.
.
PD,
.
Because the Right has always tried to fire up their base by painting that at the liberal position - that those on the left believe that ALL religious people are authoritarians and bigots. Keeps them in line, even if it's NOT true.
.
And we know that the MSM is always accurate in their portrayal of the left position on everything.

Bigotry? Hatred? These are loaded words. They do not in any way describe the majority of those who are opposed to homosexuality. Not condoning a particular behavior is not synonymous with hating the individual who engages in that behavior.

I never thought I'd be so happy to see an AS thread.
.
Yeah, the smell of "dead steed" was getting a little strong on the last thread.

spob, for once has a legitimate (and topical) point.
From the standpoint of logic and consistency the punishment for any particular crime should be quite independent of the identity of the victim. Of course in the real world there are some serious problems with that assumption. But I'm not convinced that creating a special class of victim is the bast way to deal with the general problem of prejudice.

It's really a sad statement about religion in America that extremist religious groups are so common here that a document like this is necessary.
.
I've thought for a long time that the 'Hate Crimes' bill should be renamed to something like the 'Anti-Terrorism' bill. It's not so much about people that commit crimes because of hatred as it is about additional penalties for people who commit crimes to terrorize groups they hate. A name change might make the bill more palatable to some.

PD, I think that you cannot deny that "low-level" crimes like vandalism that are motivated by hate need to be punished more severely. They have a terroristic effect on people. And that needs to be recognized. The criminal law cannot be blind to the plight of a family who has "N .... go home" painted on its lawn.
.
The real issue, in my view, is the selective enforcement problem.

bobcnl: I'll second the idea of the power in a name. Remember when some people thought the Moral Majority was actually moral and a majority?

But I'm not convinced that creating a special class of victim is the bast way to deal with the general problem of prejudice.
.
Reminds me of the creation of the "civil rights violation" category as a prosecutorial tool because juries in the deep south would refuse to convict someone for killing a black.
.
No, you can't do away with prejudice in that way. I think they're just trying to figure out some way to provide punishment for a type of crime that everyone knows is occurring but that clever lawyers can turn into something much less serious due to considerable variations in enforcement.

I can't pretend to know the Constitutionality of Hate Crime bills but it strikes me that if someone spray paints a peace sign on a synagogue they should be treated differently than someone who spray paints a swastika.
.
They are both acts of vandalism but they hardly have the same impact.

Great thunder, bu' this thread be a godsend - I be needin' t' thank ye, Amy! Perh'aps yer secret rehabilitatin' be takin' after all!
.
An' I don't mind a hair bein' wrong regardin' th' subject!
.
If all th' various churches who be havin' such a problem wi' gay people would respect th' division b'tween church an' state, they could be preachin' whatever they b'lieved an' I wouldn't be havin' no problem. Bu, they seems to be unable t' refrain fr'm concernin' themselves wi' what be Ceaser's. Tha' be one o' th' things tha' be havin' t' change.
.
An' makin' it clear t' their congregations tha' no matter wha' they be b'lievin' regardin' partic'lar individuals' lifestyles, thar be no tolerance wi'in th' walls o' God's house fer violence o' any sort wha'soever be a partic'lar burden on th' shoulders o' th preachers o' those sorts o' churches. They needs t' be makin' sure tha message be crystal.
.
Arrgh.

"It's really a sad statement about religion in America that extremist religious groups are so common here that a document like this is necessary."
.
This statement shows a lot of ignorance. Right-wing religious people aren't the ones assaulting gays.

They are both acts of vandalism but they hardly have the same impact.
.
Bingo, Paul.
.
THAT's the needle that they are trying to thread with this. Without some way to differentiate, graffiti would be just graffiti.

PW obviously has very little understanding of the reality of gay-bashing. There aren't too many right-wing preachers in urban areas, where many many gays choose to live.

I think the legislation is a necessary tool in the efforts to stop this type of hate crime. As sad as it is to think about, there are some people who hate gays just because they're gay just like there are some people who hate blacks just because they're black. If the country ever gets to the point where these kind of crimes aren't an issue, just repeal the laws. I think they'll stay on the books for quite awhile.

I think the terrorizing motive is a great way to distinguish between crime and the so-called "hate crime." If one's intent is to incite or induce fear into an entire group of people, that needs to be separated from one who targets a specific individual out of hatred. Many murders, beatings, and acts of vandalism stem from hatred of the victim, for numerous reasons. Thus the traditional definition of hate-crimes could be applied in any number of normal crimes. Expanding the clause to include the intention of terrorizing an entire community rather than simply hate induced infliction of harm or pain upon a single individual would lessen the potential for an uneven application of the law.

neorationalist86, Richard Nixon was heard on a recently released tape saying that he understood that abortion should be allowed under circumstances, like when the offspring would be that of a Black and a White. Nixon didn't condone a particular behavior in that case. Did Nixon consider Black people equal?
.
Were the people who upheld statues that banned marriage between interracial marriage as in Loving vs Virginia, merely not condoning a particular behavior or sending a political message that one group was less than the other?