Why Is This Man Shooting Grandma?

Seriously, this is incredibly offensive to the gay grandmas out there.

And also: Sheesh. If you have a problem with hate-crime legislation (and I can understand both sides of that issue), then talk about it like a person and not like a bigot. That sort of propaganda would *not* fly if it used a Jewish person or a black person instead of a gay person as the example, and the ostensible objection here would apply to all groups protected under such legislation. Or are they saying they’re okay with calling certain violent crimes against blacks hate crimes, but not if those same crimes are committed against homosexuals?

I can’t wrap my brain around the way these people think, I really can’t.

What? I don’t think their point is very hard to understand and I probably agree with it.

If you increase penalties for “hate” crimes against certain groups it is the same as “discounting” penalties for crimes against non-recognized groups. Presumably assaulting a visible minority would be punished more severely than a crime committed against a white male?

I’ve never agreed with that kind of reverse discrimination/racism or hate crime laws in general. That’s actually one of the problems I have with the modern day incarnation of “liberalism”.

Well if you look at the PDF in the same article this bumper sticker’s published, here: http://www.f2a.org/images/stories/liberty/FactSheet-ThoughtCrimesBill.pdf things become a little clearer.

Despite the, what I as a lay person and not a legal consider, unambiguous nature of the legislation, this claim is made:

Citizens for Community Values President Phil Burress provides this insight on the phrase
“sexual orientation.” What does it mean?
“In 1993, Charlie Winburn, then a Cincinnati City Councilman, became the first in the nation to raise this question – because it
had been used in piece of local, special rights legislation. Winburn found that the term could include a variety of bizarre sexual
behaviors. Here are just a few:
• Incest – sex with one’s offspring (a crime, of course)
• Necrophilia – sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime
• Pedophilia – sex with an underage child, another crime
• Zoophilia – bestiality, a crime in numerous states
• Voyeurism – a criminal offense in most states
• Fronteurism – which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks
• Coprophilia – sexual arousal from feces
• Urophilia – sexual arousal from urine
Proponents of H.R. 1913 refuse to define sexual orientation in the bill. Consequently, these bizarre behaviors will
become protected classes! In fact, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), offered an amendment that would have at least excluded
pedophilia as a sexual orientation covered under the bill. Surely, King thought, the proponents would not want men sexually
molesting children to become a protected class under this bill. King’s amendment was defeated.

Yes, by saying that crimes with their root cause as sexual orientation have their own penalties, suddenly illegal behaviors become legal.

Dizzying, and somewhat at odds with this:

A. This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal
penalties imposed under state law – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s
“actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or disability.” Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to
10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or “includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but doesn’t this mean that the for the crime to stick the prosecution would have to prove that motive was based on gender, orientation etc etc, and nothing to do with the incest et al?

@Shane

I think you’re missing the point of the legislation. A person who goes out of his way to beat up homosexuals is motivated by one thing, beating up homosexuals. If any petty larceny eventuates from that it’s a product of beating up homosexuals, not because that person is a thief.

Larceny is larceny, if there is no evidence that the crime was committed on basis of race, religion etc then the legislation doesn’t come in to play, it simply isn’t a factor.

I have some reservations about hate crime legislation because it’s often so difficult to prove the motivation. I absolutely do believe that motive should be a factor in determining the sentence. Our laws already reflect this, for example in making premeditated murder a more serious crime than one committed in the heat of the moment.

So while I may not be comfortable with the laws it’s clearly not for the reason these people do. They don’t believe that crimes against grandma and hate crimes against homosexuals should be equal. The implication is that offensive coupon is that grandma is more valuable than a homosexual.

Somero: You are totally correct. A crime where someone targeted the elderly because they hate older people (as opposed to because they’re easier victims) would be a hate crime. Also if a gang of gays beat up a straight person because they’re straight it would be a hate crime, though in reality that situation is very unlikely.

I absolutely do believe that motive should be a factor in determining the sentence.

I agree; while it is never permissible to commit a crime (by definition), in some cases committing a crime seems more heinous than others. For example, most agree than premeditated crimes deserve harsher punishment than similar crimes motivated by a strong emotional reaction in the moment (and our laws generally reflect this).

But why is bigotry a worse motive for committing a crime than jealousy or financial gain? It is not a crime to hate someone, even because of his or her race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. I could yell racial/sexual epitaphs at anyone, in public, if I wanted to (I don’t), and it is not a crime. If I then commit a crime, I should be punished for the crime, not because of an arbitrary list of things I shouldn’t think/feel about that person

One might argue that hate crimes tend to be more heinous, and thus should be punished more harshly as such. However, we can simply increase the punishment based on the cruelty of the act directly. In fact, its conceivable that because of hate crime legislation, a crime against a minority could be punished more severely than a more heinous crime, because it was not motivated by bigotry.

Not to be too negative, I also agree that its probably the case that this group believes that grandma is more valuable than a homosexual, which is both ignorant and intolerant. However, I have to agree with Shane that the point they are making is valid.

Jeff,

Bigotry is a worse motive than jealousy or financial gain because a crime motivated by bigotry is particularly dehumanizing. It represents a special and disgusting sort of attack as different and repulsive; this is totally unacceptable in a civil society.

Race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. have a special tie to an individual’s identity. In an attack based on greed, the target is an individual’s property; in an attack based on bigotry the target is not just the individual herself but some of the most intimate aspects of her personhood.

the point is clear, and is wrong.
Hate crimes are not creating protected classes of people.
Hate crimes are an attempt to implement the old Biblical ideal of an eye for an eye.
If you commit a hate crime, you are causing intimidation harm to a community of people, so your punishment is punishment for the basic crime, increased as retribution for the intimidation harm caused to that community.
The punishment is attempting to equal the harm caused.

So who are these murderers who are thinking “I might shoot that guy, but if I shoot that woman I’ll get a lesser sentence, so I’ll shoot her instead”?

@Vincent

If you commit a hate crime, you are causing intimidation harm to a community of people, so your punishment is punishment for the basic crime, increased as retribution for the intimidation harm caused to that community.
The punishment is attempting to equal the harm caused.

That’s a good point, but why do we have to drag things like race and gender into this? Why not just determine if intimidation was intended, and increase the punishment for that? It’s possible to intend to intimidate a group of people without performing a hate crime. One can threaten just about any group of people by performing a crime, it is not limited to groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

@ Jeff Satterley

Every crime will intimidate someone. If you rob a store the people in the neighborhood will be intimidated because they think crimes increasing. The difference in a hate crime is that the intimidation is intentional and very concentrated to a particular group.

Hate crimes should be prosecuted differently from theft or jealousy because part of the intent in targeting a member of a specific race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, is to terrorize and oppress that specific group. The act of violence attempts to foster an atmosphere of fear and control over the group, which is hardly conducive to a properly functioning society.

In the UK we’ve had these additional penalties for hate crimes for years. I believe that they are superfluous. If someone commits a crime motivated by gender, race, sexual orientation, religion etc then all this shows is that the crime was motivated and more likely to be premeditated. As such they should already receive a harsher penalty than stupid acts against random people simply because such people are more likely to re-offend.

They’re trying to whip up more animosity toward LGBT people, and antagonism toward HR 1913, by implying that “homos will get more legal protection than defenseless grandmas”. That is, of course, patently false. But it’s not like the RRRW has ever had an affinity for the truth.

Hate crimes laws are necessary, though I wish they weren’t. The very people who are protected by them, and are fighting ardently to keep LGBT people from having the same protections they take for granted, only prove how urgently they’re needed.

I’m pretty sure this “coupon” was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

They specifically used homosexuals as an example because H.R. 1913 was drafted with “crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity” in mind (the exact wording of the resolution).

Now, is that going to stop gay-bashers from interpreting it as “get the fags?” Probably not. Do the people behind it harbor anti-gay sentiments? It’s possible, yes. But I understand the general message of this to be a satirical swipe at hate crime laws in general.

I’m in two minds on this one. The ad is blatant homophobic bigotry, and should be dismissed as such. However the question of premeditated assault based on a person’s sexuality or ethnicity etc. carrying a stiffer penalty that plain old assault is ambiguous.
It might be due to the intimidation factor, and the tendancy for the offender to re-offend. You could argue that a one-off crime of passion directed at one person is less likely to trigger a repeat performance, but does that mean it’s less of a crime?
There are several considerations to the sentance: is the offender more likely to try the same thing again if it’s a class of person they hate? Are they just as likely to pick the same number of victims from a random crossection of society if it isn’t a hatecrime? Is the intention to harm one specific person or to intimidate an entire group? Do the public need protecting? Was it pre-meditated?
I think hatecrime should be sentanced the same as any other murder, as in, “What’s the likelyhood that this person will do it again”, except with the added disincentive to anyone considering a copycat assault based on their prejudices built into the sentance.
This is the same reason witness intimidation gets heavy sentancing in the UK, as it discourages criminals from thinking the motive is generally treated as irrelevant to the severity of the crime.
I used to work in a sculpting warehouse with a guy who would brag about his intent to go gay-bashing on the weekend, and it seemed clear that in his mindset at least gay-bashing could be considered as just a leisure activity.
(With hindsight I probably should’ve reported it, but as a closet gay man in a homophobic workplace I didn’t have the confidence).
That’s why the law is there.

Zar, you hit the nail on the head. Hate crimes are ultimately a form of terrorism against a specific community of people.

Why aren’t all the anti-hate crime people on here arguing that we shouldn’t target terrorism as anything special either? Either way the victims are dead. If three or five guys conspire to plant a bomb in a shopping mall, is that any different than a robber shooting several people at the shopping mall during a robbery attempt? The victims are still dead, aren’t they?

But isn’t it clear that we recognize terrorism as a special threat to society? And isn’t it clear that we regard the terrorists intention to kill people as more of a threat to society in general than the robber killing people during the commission of his crime?

Dwasifar said:

I don’t like bigotry and racism any more than the next guy, but I think it’s very dangerous to have laws that lay extra punishment on you for your frame of mind. It’s a small step from that to, say, punishing people for hating without acting on it, or punishing people for holding the wrong opinions about government, or any other thoughts or beliefs you care to name. The conservatives have a point with this one. It borders on Thought Police territory.

Again, hate crime laws do not penalize what people say or think. They penalize what people do. Bigotry is legal and is protected by the First Amendment. Committing an act of violence because the victim is gay, black, white, immigrant, etc., is illegal. The law is recognizing that these kinds of crimes are a special threat to society. It has nothing to do with penalizing thought.

Or are people on here unfamiliar with the role that motive can play in the sentencing process? It goes far beyond hate crimes.

I see many people say that they do not like these laws because it is so hard to prove motive. But the courts are not just guessing at people’s motives. Prosecutors have to prove hate crimes in court. There has to be solid evidence that it was a hate crime. This isn’t something that is arbitrarily applied. That goes the same for any prosecution: motive has to be demonstrated in the courtroom.

I think a big reason why hate crime legislation is necessary is the likelihood of repeat offenders. If you are willing to attack/kill someone based on your bigotry and hatred, what is to stop you from doing it again and again?

This is how we deal with lots of crimes in our society…hence crimes of passion are punished less since they aren’t likely to repeat (although I would argue that people who give into ‘passion’ at that level are more likely to commit a ‘passion’ crime than a random sample, hence we throw those people in jail). The more reason we have to believe a person will re-offend the more likely we are to keep them in jail longer. (I should note that this rationale may not be the official legal one)

Also, just because you hate a group and beat them up, it doesn’t make it a hate crime. You can hate Mexicans all day, but if you beat up one for his/her wallet, it isn’t a hate crime…although if you go around sharing your hatred, it may look like a hate crime…

I think one of the big reasons for disagreement is what we think JAIL is for. I think we throw people in jail to keep others safe, while others think jail is for punishment.

Different jail for the same offense seems like unfair way to deal out punishment, but from the prospective of protecting the community, WHY a crime is committed and the likelihood of repeat offenses is extremely important.

Lost left coaster said:

Again, hate crime laws do not penalize what people say or think. They penalize what people do.

If the penalty for beating someone up is X, and the penalty for beating someone up while thinking “I hate” is X plus Y, how is Y not the penalty for thinking “I hate”?

I can see why people view this as “one violent crime is no better than another”.

However, the more time someone gets for a violent crime (murder, rape) the better. I don’t believe in people going to jail over not hurting someone else (like for smoking pot). Our jails are overcrowded. Violent crimes are dangerous for society, and should be punished. Gay people and other groups shouldn’t have to live in fear of being assaulted or killed for being who they are.
Honestly, how could you be against a hate crime bill!

If you increase penalties for “hate” crimes against certain groups it is the same as “discounting” penalties for crimes against non-recognized groups.

Not sure if I agree with this. If the milk I buy is usually $3.80 per gallon, but then a more expensive brand milk comes along @$4.20 per gallon, then I wouldn’t make the argument that I would be “saving” $.40 now and my personal finances wouldn’t show that I had any additional income.

The “non” hate crimes would still have the same penalty. Thus, the coupon above is void. 🙂