Hate Crimes

[Jack Scribe]

Here's the latest stats from the FBI courtesy of Towleroad:

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/11/hate-crimes-fou.html

This includes hate crimes include victims involving race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability.

 

Palm Springs (my home) had one of the highest per capita numbers of reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation in California in 2006. Our police say the report shows how seriously law enforcement takes protecting a population that includes a large percentage of gay and lesbian residents. They are very supportive of our community(But the mayor and three city council members are GLBT).

 

Still a lot of work to do. Fortunately, the majority of people in Europe, U.K., North America, Oz and Kiwiland have become more accepting. It's the handful of whacko buttheads ya gotta watch out fer.

 

Jack

 

P.S. I just occurred to me that, while the U.K. is always well represented, I hardly ever see anyone on this site from Ireland.

[AFriendlyFace]

Here's the latest stats from the FBI courtesy of Towleroad:

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/11/hate-crimes-fou.html

This includes hate crimes include victims involving race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability.

This is indeed a very disturbing trend

 

I wonder to what we can attribute this rise? The only guess I could venture is that with an increase in the amount of publicity that gay marriage has gotten (a good thing ) there's an inevitable backlash from those vehemently opposed (a bad thing ).

 

P.S. I just occurred to me that, while the U.K. is always well represented, I hardly ever see anyone on this site from Ireland.

Marty is Irish! Only member I can recall off hand though.

 

Interesting article, Jack, thanks!

 

Have an awesome day and take care all!

Kevin

[Graeme]

Another possibility is that it isn't an increase in hate crimes, but an increase in the reporting of hate crimes as the victims gain confidence that they'll be treated fairly. I'm not saying that that is the case, just putting it out there as a possibility.

[Benji]

Another possibility is that it isn't an increase in hate crimes, but an increase in the reporting of hate crimes as the victims gain confidence that they'll be treated fairly. I'm not saying that that is the case, just putting it out there as a possibility.

 

 

.......Unfortunately that makes more sense, in a twisted way I'd rather see it as an increase in reporting rather than an increase of hate crimes, does that make sense?

[AFriendlyFace]

Another possibility is that it isn't an increase in hate crimes, but an increase in the reporting of hate crimes as the victims gain confidence that they'll be treated fairly. I'm not saying that that is the case, just putting it out there as a possibility.

Ohhhh, that is an interesting theory! I hope that is part of it!

 

.......Unfortunately that makes more sense, in a twisted way I'd rather see it as an increase in reporting rather than an increase of hate crimes, does that make sense?

Oh definitely! This way at least no extra people are being hurt, just more people are getting justice! That is much better

[ashessnow]

I don't know, I have my own issues on "hate crimes". I don't really think we should be legislating what's in peoples heads but, that's just me.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Nerotorb

[Benji]

I don't know, I have my own issues on "hate crimes". I don't really think we should be legislating what's in peoples heads but, that's just me.

 

 

........... :wacko: Don't care what's in their heads...... do care when they try to thump on mine though!!

Edited February 7, 2008 by Benji

[Graeme]

I don't know, I have my own issues on "hate crimes". I don't really think we should be legislating what's in peoples heads but, that's just me.

The theory on hate crimes, as I understand it, is that they are penalising the motive because it impacts on more than just the victim. A hate crime is one that is supposed to intimidate/frighten/terrorise a group/class of people, even though only one (or more) of that group/class is the immediate victim. For example, an attack on an individual because the attacker doesn't like them has no significant impact on others (ignoring flow-on effects to friends/family), but an attack on an individual because they belong to a group means that the entire group is being threatened.

[rec]

Hate crimes are thought crimes--nothing but.

 

I have real trouble ascribing a crime to what they think. The crime should be the action--assault, murder--but to call it a crime because you hate someone seems to me a clear violation of our basic freedoms. Whether or not Matthew Shepard was killed because of hate or for some other reason is immaterial. He was murdered, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice--on murder charges.

 

I cannot undertand why the person who threw a Koran in the toilet at Pace University should be charged with a felony because of what he thought and the artist who did Piss Christ should be rewarded by the National Endowment for the Arts because what he thought didn't offend someone is beyond me to understand.

 

To me, the crime is the action against person or property, not the thought behind it.

 

rec

[glomph]

Besides what Graeme said, it's not uncommon in the US legal system to take account of aggravating factors in crimes, so it's not like the concept of hate crimes breaks new ground. It's just one more example of an established legal principle.

[ashessnow]

The theory on hate crimes, as I understand it, is that they are penalising the motive because it impacts on more than just the victim. A hate crime is one that is supposed to intimidate/frighten/terrorise a group/class of people, even though only one (or more) of that group/class is the immediate victim. For example, an attack on an individual because the attacker doesn't like them has no significant impact on others (ignoring flow-on effects to friends/family), but an attack on an individual because they belong to a group means that the entire group is being threatened.

Oh I understand the reasoning behind it, but to me a crime is a crime. People shouldn't be treated differently because they hold different beliefs.

[AFriendlyFace]

I agree with Graeme, Benji, and glomph

 

The theory on hate crimes, as I understand it, is that they are penalising the motive because it impacts on more than just the victim. A hate crime is one that is supposed to intimidate/frighten/terrorise a group/class of people, even though only one (or more) of that group/class is the immediate victim. For example, an attack on an individual because the attacker doesn't like them has no significant impact on others (ignoring flow-on effects to friends/family), but an attack on an individual because they belong to a group means that the entire group is being threatened.

Exactly, a good analogy is that random acts of violence, like say a drive by shooting in which the perpetrator doesn't know the victim, is a hell of a lot scarier than say a drive by shooting in which the perpetrator is killing someone who slept with his wife, or got him fired, or whatever.

 

The reason is because it makes me (and others) think "It could have been me!" If someone is killed for a reason beyond their control it's scary. I can do my best to avoid becoming entangled with unstable, potentially homicidal individuals but there's nothing I can do if a random stranger wants to kill me. (I'm not saying it's the victims' fault at all, just that there's a little more warning and control that goes into it with the murderer is someone you know).

 

Similarly it's scarier if someone is just going around killing gay people. I'm gay and I cannot and will not/would not change that, but if I'm minding my own business I should be left alone!

 

I cannot undertand why the person who threw a Koran in the toilet at Pace University should be charged with a felony because of what he thought and the artist who did Piss Christ should be rewarded by the National Endowment for the Arts because what he thought didn't offend someone is beyond me to understand.

There's a difference there, IMO. If the person threw a Christian (or atheist) in the toilet (or let's say the Bible for instance) simply because of their religious views that would be comparable, and I think they should receive the same treatment. Similarly someone who produced a "vulgar" work of art that seemed to be undermining any religion should potentially receive the same praise (based on merit of course).

 

Art is a more civilized, subjective, creative form. Personally a "Piss Christ" offends me as a Christian, but I don't equate it to someone making a big deal about throwing the Bible in a toilet.

 

Hate crimes are thought crimes--nothing but.

 

I have real trouble ascribing a crime to what they think. The crime should be the action--assault, murder--but to call it a crime because you hate someone seems to me a clear violation of our basic freedoms. Whether or not Matthew Shepard was killed because of hate or for some other reason is immaterial. He was murdered, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice--on murder charges.

 

To me, the crime is the action against person or property, not the thought behind it.

I have no trouble ascribing a crime to what the perpetrator thought. To me it's all about motives. If someone backs over my cat I'm going to be really upset, but it's going to piss me off alot more, and I'm going to be spitting nails angry if the person did it on purpose to be malicious. Conversely if it was a total accident and the person is obviously sincerely sorry I'm still going to be sad, but I'm not going to be angry and I may very well try to make the person feel better and assuage their guilt.

 

Besides what Graeme said, it's not uncommon in the US legal system to take account of aggravating factors in crimes, so it's not like the concept of hate crimes breaks new ground. It's just one more example of an established legal principle.

Exactly, it's the same difference that's always existed between 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. We have a long history of saying "It's worse that you carefully planned this dude's murder" vs. "Your negligence resulted in this guy's murder and you're going to be punished but we'll take into consideration that you didn't mean to".

 

Motives are very important and crimes that affect whole classes of people are more serious. I've always held that the judicial system shouldn't be blind and completely objective; it needs to carefully weigh all the circumstances and decide on a case by case basis. No two crimes are equal.

 

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

[Firehose]

The ongoing tragedy is when informed 'men' stand by and do or say nothing. It's not easy to moderate attitude but unwillingness to defend or at least to stand against a homophobic comment is the silence that reinforces the hate.

[FrenchCanadian]

The ongoing tragedy is when informed 'men' stand by and do or say nothing. It's not easy to moderate attitude but unwillingness to defend or at least to stand against a homophobic comment is the silence that reinforces the hate.

 

when it's homophobic comment no matter the kind,, even if the guy it were directed against ain't there, you still have the need to defend,, like Firehose said, saying nothing, keeping silence,, just say that you approve they're comment.

[Tiger]

Here's the latest stats from the FBI courtesy of Towleroad:

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/11/hate-crimes-fou.html

This includes hate crimes include victims involving race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability.

 

Palm Springs (my home) had one of the highest per capita numbers of reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation in California in 2006. Our police say the report shows how seriously law enforcement takes protecting a population that includes a large percentage of gay and lesbian residents. They are very supportive of our community(But the mayor and three city council members are GLBT).

 

Still a lot of work to do. Fortunately, the majority of people in Europe, U.K., North America, Oz and Kiwiland have become more accepting. It's the handful of whacko buttheads ya gotta watch out fer.

 

Jack

 

P.S. I just occurred to me that, while the U.K. is always well represented, I hardly ever see anyone on this site from Ireland.

 

Hate crimes against LGBT people seems to be largely unreported by the media, except with the victim is a beautiful blond-haired, blue-eyed Adonis. Perhaps they should start paying more attention to these hate crimes. They happen more than anyone wants to admit. There have been strides within the last 30 years, but there are still millions of homophobes in the streets.

[FrenchCanadian]

Hate crimes against LGBT people seems to be largely unreported by the media, except with the victim is a beautiful blond-haired, blue-eyed Adonis. Perhaps they should start paying more attention to these hate crimes. They happen more than anyone wants to admit. There have been strides within the last 30 years, but there are still millions of homophobes in the streets.

 

exactly,, Like it was said before,, sadly (tho it's a good thing) is because the victims have less fear when it comes to reporting those hate crimes. Believe or not,, time keep getting better for gay.

[Benji]

exactly,, Like it was said before,, sadly (tho it's a good thing) is because the victims have less fear when it comes to reporting those hate crimes. Believe or not,, time keep getting better for gay.

 

 

....I totally agree, times are a lot better then they were 40 years ago, for a lot of people!!

[Tiger]

....I totally agree, times are a lot better then they were 40 years ago, for a lot of people!!

Activism is at least partly responsible for that fact. We cannot let our guard down at any point in time. They are still attacking, though some attack in much more subtle ways.

[FrenchCanadian]

Activism is at least partly responsible for that fact. We cannot let our guard down at any point in time. They are still attacking, though some attack in much more subtle ways.

 

They might still attacking, but I don't think that the gay rights can loose what they have already gained. It can only go up,, gay comes out more and more younger because they feel like they can. That should lead to their entourage being more accepting.

[Tiger]

They might still attacking, but I don't think that the gay rights can loose what they have already gained. It can only go up,, gay comes out more and more younger because they feel like they can. That should lead to their entourage being more accepting.

The trend is that more hate crimes are being committed against gays. That is a major concern right now. That is why we must keep advocating for our rights and protections.

[rich_e]

I agree with Graeme, Benji, and glomph

 

 

Exactly, a good analogy is that random acts of violence, like say a drive by shooting in which the perpetrator doesn't know the victim, is a hell of a lot scarier than say a drive by shooting in which the perpetrator is killing someone who slept with his wife, or got him fired, or whatever.

 

The reason is because it makes me (and others) think "It could have been me!" If someone is killed for a reason beyond their control it's scary. I can do my best to avoid becoming entangled with unstable, potentially homicidal individuals but there's nothing I can do if a random stranger wants to kill me. (I'm not saying it's the victims' fault at all, just that there's a little more warning and control that goes into it with the murderer is someone you know).

 

Similarly it's scarier if someone is just going around killing gay people. I'm gay and I cannot and will not/would not change that, but if I'm minding my own business I should be left alone!

 

 

There's a difference there, IMO. If the person threw a Christian (or atheist) in the toilet (or let's say the Bible for instance) simply because of their religious views that would be comparable, and I think they should receive the same treatment. Similarly someone who produced a "vulgar" work of art that seemed to be undermining any religion should potentially receive the same praise (based on merit of course).

 

Art is a more civilized, subjective, creative form. Personally a "Piss Christ" offends me as a Christian, but I don't equate it to someone making a big deal about throwing the Bible in a toilet.

 

 

I have no trouble ascribing a crime to what the perpetrator thought. To me it's all about motives. If someone backs over my cat I'm going to be really upset, but it's going to piss me off alot more, and I'm going to be spitting nails angry if the person did it on purpose to be malicious. Conversely if it was a total accident and the person is obviously sincerely sorry I'm still going to be sad, but I'm not going to be angry and I may very well try to make the person feel better and assuage their guilt.

 

 

Exactly, it's the same difference that's always existed between 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. We have a long history of saying "It's worse that you carefully planned this dude's murder" vs. "Your negligence resulted in this guy's murder and you're going to be punished but we'll take into consideration that you didn't mean to".

 

Motives are very important and crimes that affect whole classes of people are more serious. I've always held that the judicial system shouldn't be blind and completely objective; it needs to carefully weigh all the circumstances and decide on a case by case basis. No two crimes are equal.

 

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

 

 

I completely agree.

[AFriendlyFace]

**inserts tongue firmly in cheek**

 

There have been strides within the last 30 years, but there are still millions of homophobes in the streets.

That problem begs for an obvious solution