Secrets of the City

I’ll say a prayer for Jan Markell’s soul. As a Christian, I am asked to forgive my enemies, and I shall forgive her trespasses.

“…the legislation has provisions that ensure that prosecution would be based only on violent acts based on bias.”

The very thoughts in your head; as if anyone can really see into your heart.

I’ve never like hate crimes legislation.

Don’t you have to commit an act of violence to be prosecuted under this law? And didn’t Jesus teach love and pacifism? It is not anti-christian at all.

Are you also opposed to distinguishing between Murder One and manslaughter because the distinction is based on the thoughts in your head? Or the varieties of tort legislation that rely on intent to determine punishment?

That’s a bit supercilious, Bob. What did she do to you?

Well, she did mischaracterize the legislation. That’s a sin of a sort. A sin against democracy.

No, I’m not opposed to those, Max. When I say that, I mean I don’t have as strong an opinion on that. These I see as something different in ways that are rather obvious, but difficult to explain.

Just a minor point max: I think you’re using the wrong degree of murder. First degree is premeditated, and that takes quite a bit more than “thoughts in your head.” Things that are much more easily proven in court.

Regardless, I agree with your point: plenty of things in criminal law come down to “intent” or what was in your mind at the time.

Based on my understanding of hate crimes, the standard of evidence is pretty high for that, too. It’s not enough that you attack someone who is of a different color or gender or whatever, the prosecution has to establish that the crime was motivated by hate.

I’d say that the best aspect of the law is from the standpoint of the Federal gov’t being able to step in and prosecute when the local authorities prove recalcitrant. The conviction may be harder to obtain, but it might make some fence sitting D.A.s more likely to prosecute the underlying crime.

Well, Ms. Markell is wrong about this: “She continued, ‘It shows the level of contempt President Obama has for the majority of Americans who oppose the homosexualization of marriage [...].’” She must have meant to say “Dick Cheney,” as he openly supports gay marriage. Obama, not so much: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1917344,00.html

“I’ve never like hate crimes legislation”

I’ll bet you have never had a cross burnt on your front lawn, either. I hope you never do. That’s why they pass hate crimes legislation, because hate crimes are real.

“That’s a bit supercilious, Bob. What did she do to you?”

She insulted and misrepresented my faith, by suggesting that her particular brand of Christianity is ‘the truth.’ I don’t know if Jesus knew any gay people. I don’t even know if Jesus was gay or not. However, I do believe that he would have been open and loving to them, as he was to many other ‘outcasts’ of his society. That just seemed to be the way we operated, and I wish others could follow his example a little better.

That said, I’m not going to cast the first stone.

BTW, watch what the voters in Maine have to say today about gay marriage. It’s on their ballot.

Its a good thing this Markell fella doesn’t use broad sweeping generalizations, imagery and symbolism to express fundamentalist views.

So if someone burned a cross on my front lawn, there’s nothing on the books that the person could be prosecuted with? Doesn’t have to be at the federal level.

Yes. There’s hate crime legislation.

I suppose you also prosecute them for property damage or trespassing. Do you think cross burning is as simple as property damage or tesspassing? That it has no larger message or social impact?

It would seem to me someone making some type of terroristic threat. But that is still an actual act, not a thought which is now a Federal Crime. Think FBI.

The problem with the wingnuts fake outrage (its really about fundraising) is that hate crime laws have been around for decades and the events they describe haven’t come to past.

Personally I have mix feelings about hate crime laws and think we should remove items from protection that are clearly a choice – like religion (and I’m saying that only slightly tongue in cheek).

Making it clear that someone is being attacked solely because they’re gay could be seen as a terroristic threat to other gays, rat.

It’s my understanding that the crime only becomes federal when local authorities refuse to prosecute as hate crime. Actuually, this isn’t new — the feds could step in when federally rpotected activites where being affected by hate crimes, such as voting and going to school, but the bill has expanded what the feds can prosecute.

As to your point about terrorism, well, what distinguishes terrorism from other crimes except the intent?

I find it interesting that this brand of Chrisitanity is against hate crime legislations since they often talk about how persecuted they are. You would think they would want protection agains that like other minority groups do…

Like I said, I have a hard time explaining the difference, but it just seems to be taking intent to a whole other direction. One that seems much more subjective than the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

What’s interesting to me, K.C., is that they are equally protected under the legislation against attacks against them based on religion. But there always seems to be someone who thinks that the definition of intolerence is not letting somebody be intolerant.

Well, you and Dave are right that it is different than the various murder charges, but the use of intent in hate crime legislation seems similar to me as how it is used in, say, specific intent cases — a charge of burglary, for instance, requires breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with an intent to commit a felony therein; without the specific intent, it’s not burglary, but breaking and entering.

You may be confusing intent and motive. Hate crimes are not prosecuted as hate crimes based on motive. Your motive in committing a hate crime might be that you hate Jews. But you can hate Jews, and say whatever you want about Jews, and still be protected by law. If your intent is to attack somebody because they are Jewish, that’s what causes it to be prosecuted as a hate crime, because it is a different intent than mere assault, and has a different social effect. And the prosecution must prove that intent , just as they must always prove intent.

That’s a bit supercilious,
when the local authorities prove recalcitrant

All these big words. What happened to the MNspeak that talked about bacon and neighborhoods.

Ah, those halcyon days of yore.

Yore mother.

Did someone say bacon?

ah, I probably shouldn’t have said anything.

I support it, and, max, I don’t disagree with your comparison. I was just wondering if 1st/manslaughter was the right one.

I was a bit on the fence with the hate based legislation, but after having Max explain it to me it makes a bit more sense. So, what the hell is wrong with me?

The argument that made me buy hate crimes legislation is this:

A hate crime is a crime against an individual AND a crime against a community – the intent is to inspire fear in members of that community; it affects them negatively. Hence, the increased sentence.

There’s a problem with making a martyr out of Matthew Shepherd. The two animals who did that to him did not care that he was gay and only brought it up because the girlfriend of one of them thought they’d get off easier if they said he’d come on to them. Which he hadn’t. This was all on TV on 60 Minutes or 20/20. They said they robbed him because they knew he had money on him. They knew he was gay and didn’t care. Why they beat him and left him for dead, they never had a good answer for. But because he was gay, now he is a poster boy for hate crimes. Why doesn’t anyone know about the boy who was beat to death by two gay guys at about that same time? How come if someone beats up my grandma, she doesn’t get to be a special victim like she would if she were gay?

Ethel, you have your facts wrong, and I would appreciate it if you actually did some research before stating things definitively.

As to your grandmother, yes, if she gets beat up because she is a member of any of the protected groups, then yes, she does get to be a special victim. If she’s just beaten up, then no. So you’re going to have to clarify who is doing the hypothetical beating and why.

A death panel?

I love that Ethel is taking verbatim what two people serving very long prison terms are saying after they were found guilty. I hope she hasn’t bred.

I’m generally against hate crimes legislation because of mandatory sentencing and grey areas. When’s the last time someone beat the shit out of someone they didn’t hate? Pretty much anything that constitutes an actual hate crime is covered by law already, if the crime is especially egregious use judicial discretion in sentencing.

This may sound ridiculous but think of it this way, if there’s a bully going around beating up nerdy kids or overweight kids or homeless people is that covered by hate-crime legislation? Even though it is an entire group or classification that is being attacked, it’s not.

Also, good luck actually determining bias in a lot of these cases. If seen so many cases where it’s not at all clear and yet people still get prosecuted under hate crimes legislation.

Also, Jan Markell, I dare you to STFU.

I love that Ethel expects us to actually believe her grandma is still alive…Ethel is grandma….Soylent Green is P-E-O-P-L-E.

Matthew Shepard revisionism seems to be the new cause celebre for the fundamentalist right wing so-called “Christians”. also, my grandma would kick ethel’s grandma’s ass just for laughs.

“BTW, watch what the voters in Maine have to say today about gay marriage. It’s on their ballot.”

The people have spoken, Bob?

If they don’t want to be accused of hate speech, they don’t have to practice it. That said, religious speech remains protected as is any speech not used to commit a crime. These people are either stupid or dishonest.

Yo Ethel. You answered your own question. They used his gayness as a coverup and an excuse for their crime. Meaning they knew if before they murdered him. That’s bias right there. Equals hate crime.

And I don’t care what John Stossel says.

Just to be clear, it is motive, not intent, that lays the foundation for a hate crime under this bill.

The bill defines the offense as causing harm or attempting to cause harm “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.” The word “because” clearly denotes motive, not intent.

Oddly enough, the bill does not define “sexual orientation.” If someone assaulted a pedophile a la Mystic River, a zealous prosecutor could charge the assailant with a hate cimre by arguing that the person was assaulted because of his “sexual orientation.” (I AM NOT equating pedohpilia with homosexuality, but rather pointing out a gap in the legislation.)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111etGmCN:e2000111: