It’s not about higher punishment, it really gets to the core of the inequality of punishments. I agree hate crimes should be unnecessary. Every crime, beating, murder etc. should receive the same sentence. But unfortunately with our christian conservative society, this happens:

I do know that two of Gwen’s attackers were convicted of second degree murder, and two of voluntary manslaughter.

So until our judges that worry more about putting the 10 commandments up on the wall behind them start handing out sentences for horrible murders against gay people or transgendered people, in the exact same manner they hand them out for horrible murders against nice “regular” citizens (read missing blonde chick du jour on Fox News), THEN we can start talking about the neccessity for hate crimes or not.

Now I know not all you conservatives think like that but the reality is, the majority in your party do and that philosophy drives these dissimilar unfair attitudes and sentences and creates a need to single out these types of crimes because they are generally against people the society frowns upon or cares little about.

With the logic of the “hate crime is redundant” mantra, then any crime a terrorist commits should be handled the same way as the guy who killed to steal the woman’s purse right? With that logic Guantanamo shouldn’t be necessary either. Rob’s point is excellent and spot on.

~ Mark

I can see both sides of the hate crime legislation argument, and as such, I’m not comfortable taking a hard stance either way. But I just wanted to say in response to this:

I guess I’m just trying to put myself into the mindset of someone who would risk the legal penalties of beating someone up (or killing someone)… is the “lightness” of the penalties what allows them to go ahead and cross the line to violence? I can’t prove it, but somehow I doubt it.

While I don’t have an answer to that question specifically, there can be no doubt that currently the law is basically on the side of hate crime perps when it comes to this stuff. The guys that attacked Gwen got lighter penalties than they might’ve otherwise, specifically because Gwen was transgendered. The defense argued that they were afraid and confused. As if that somehow excuses it? It’s sickening to hear that kind of argument - and have it hold sway.

And, as a follow-up to that thought… Dave, while I don’t know the “standard “penalties for first degree murder (there are a few lawyers who read this blog; they would probably know), I do know that two of Gwen’s attackers were convicted of second degree murder, and two of voluntary manslaughter. Ugh. Read more here.

but on the subject of hate crimes - hate crimes are an act of domestic terrorism. They aren’t just a crime against a person, they are an act of terror against everyone that is a member of that group. If a person was killed just because, it wouldn’t effect others disproportionally. If an African American was lynched because he was black, it would have a chilling effect on the community.

Hate crime legislation isn’t based on minority statis (as the haters would like to make you believe). Race means race, sexual orientation means orientation. Blacks have been tried and convicted of Hate Crimes against whites. If a group of gay guys took baseball bats to a straight guy coming out of a Sports Bar, that would be a hate crime too.

Perhaps the error is calling them Hate Crimes vs. terrorism.

Personally, I don’t believe in ‘hate crimes.’ I mean, I believe they happen, but I just don’t believe in differentiating sentences for someone who assaults/kills another person because they hate them. To an extent, you fuck with someone because you hate them so in effect all crimes are hate crimes… to an extent.

As I’ve said before here and on my own blog, I feel that whenever a minority make an effort to single themselves out from society or ask for special treatment, they do more harm to their cause (that is to be considered normal) than they do to help it.

It’s horrible these people did this to Gwen and I don’t know what sentence they got, but they should get whatever the penalty is for 1st degree murder. If they got anything less, then I’m on board with ya (on that one detail).

I’m afraid this might be one of those areas where I’m a Bad Gay, but I’ve never been fully clear on the purpose of hate crimes legislation.

I guess they’re intended to be either a deterrent or a punishment, in addition to the laws already on the books to discourage humans from being violent toward one another.

If they’re intended to deter, I haven’t seen studies reflecting that the kind of people who are undeterred by the laws in place barring assault and murder would be deterred by the same laws, carrying stiffer penalties. This alone wouldn’t make Hate Crime laws “bad” laws, but it would make one question the point of passing them. I guess I’m just trying to put myself into the mindset of someone who would risk the legal penalties of beating someone up (or killing someone)… is the “lightness” of the penalties what allows them to go ahead and cross the line to violence? I can’t prove it, but somehow I doubt it.

On the other hand, if these laws are not intended to be deterrent but punitive, I’m not sure how justice would be served by punishing one person’s injury more severely than another person’s.

Let’s say, for instance, someone kills my boyfriend on the street because they think he’s gay. Let’s say someone else kills my neighbor’s wife on the street because they want her purse. In both cases, a lawless person has committed a crime and stolen a loved one. Should my boyfriend’s killer receive a harsher punishment than my neighbor’s wife’s killer? I might think so, but I’ll bet my neighbor thinks his wife’s killer is deserving of the maximum possible punishment.

Anyway, not to go off on a tangent, I’m just curious about the different perspectives out there on this issue. I may not have the whole picture.

And I still am incredulous at the ridiculously small sentences the attackers (excuse me, murderers) received… in light of what they did it was basically a slap on the wrist. Totally un-fucking-acceptable.