BobbyinTN wrote:#1 - Matt, the crimes against minorities outweigh those committed against "whites" and the majority. Why is it some of you want to hide you heads in the sand when it comes to crimes against minorities committed against minorities simply because they are different?
#2 - Why are you so interested in protecting the criminal?
#3 - The fact is more whites attack people because of race and hatred. However, a black man attacking a homosexual would be punished for a hate crime, just as a homosexual attacking a white because he's white could be prosecuted for a hate crime, but you see it's all up to the lawyers and law makers who is punished for what.
#4 - You have too many people that think, "Hey, I'll go kill a queer today and it won't matter".
#5 - It seems to me those opposed to hate crime legislation are actually opposed to protected minorities and are afraid those minorities will get "special treatment" for some reason.
Bold #1 - Unproven conjecture til I see otherwise. How many crimes against "minorities" are committed by members of the same race/class/group? Not even sure if you can find a stat to differentiate who's (as in which race) is committing the crimes against who in each situation, so this will probably be tough to prove. If I were a betting man, I'd bet black on black violence accounts for much of that when talking about blacks.
Bold #2 - Absolutely NOT interested in protecting the criminal. Here you are taking my problem with hate crimes and completely twisting it around to suit an emotional appeal/argument. I'm just interested in equal punishment. If someone stabs my dad to death to steal money from him, I want them sentenced just as harshly as someone who stabs a black guy for racial reasons or otherwise. The sentence should be predicated on the willfulness of the act and the result of the act, not some murky racial/discriminatory basis that is hard to prove.
Bold #3 - Again, completely unsubstantiated conjecture and sweeping societal generalizations, honestly to the point of offensiveness. As to the black killing a gay (or white or asian or whatever) and getting a hate crime tacked onto it, still waiting for an example.
Bold #4 - Again, offensive and completely unsubstantiated. Just because whites are called out for this doesn't mean other races/classes don't do it just as often, if not more. And also again very hard to prove, so an argument better left unsaid.
Bold #5 - I am opposed to the notion that I alluded to in #2 - if someone were to harm any of my white family members, I want them sentenced just as harshly. If there are going to be hate crimes, then I want them assessed equally on whites, blacks, gays, hispanics, asians, lesbians, transsexuals etc. who perpetrate violent crime. The stories I have posted from Cleveland are clear and irrefutable (except by the most jaded/biased observer) that police and prosecutors are AFRAID to admit that racial motivation for violence cuts all ways, not just whites versus
insert minority classification here.
The Matthew Shepard case was motivated by hate. I'm not sitting here trying to say nobody hurts/kills someone because of race/sexuality at all. Quite to the contrary. The law must evolve over time (Justice Holmes: "The law consists of the felt necessity of the times."). There were no hate crime statutes on the books at the time. In the aftermath of that, and the increasing societal acceptance of homosexuality, the times seemed to necessitate an amendment to the hate crime statutes... Shepard's case got that done. That's the evolutionary process in action. You can't retrospectively apply new laws to old cases.
Henderson and McKinney got two life sentences each w/out parole and I know you're not a death penalty proponent, so what difference does it make? The trial got the message out and they received the harshest sentence you'd be willing to grant them. I say give them the needle! But that's another story for another time, but I am far from wanting to help criminals out!