Hate Crime in Virginia

Yes, moe. This is one of those serious threads. You stumbled into it by accident. Try this one instead - its about drinking games.
http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001575.html

------------------

 

What is odd about the perceived need for hate crime legislation, is that our judicial system has had the ability to increase or decrease the severity of punishment of an offender for a very long time--without the need for hate crime legislation.

Currently, actions (the act of committing the murder) is the offense for which one is arrested and tried. The motivation behind the crime is irrelevant to conviction. A prosecutor, to win a case, has to prove all elements of a crime. Motivation is not an element of the offense of murder. In Texas, we have a system of bifurcated trials. One trial for guilt or innocence, and another for punishment. Once guilt is established, then evidence of motivation can be presented to a jury to help them decide where in the range of allowable punishment to make their decision. This works both ways. Evidence can be introduced to try to convince the jury to increase the penalty or to lessen the penalty. Thus, for a crime that is punishable by life imprisonment or death at the jury's discretion, each side will introduce extraneous evidence to try to convince the jury to hit their side of the allowable range.

Thus the only legitimate argument for hate crime legislation is that jurys are ignoring evidence of motivation at the punishment phase of the trial. I'll leave that issue up to ya'll.

Finally, a note on degrees of murder. Degrees of murder do not hinge upon motivation, but rather intent. First degree murder is an 'intent to kill' murder. Second degree murder is one that does not involve the intent to kill, for example, felony murder, which is the commission of a murder (without the intent to kill--no premeditation) during the commission of a felony. To illustrate: a kidnapp and violent rape causes the victim to die of blood loss. The offende never intended for the victim to die, but is nevertheless guilty of murder in the second degree. This crime would be first degree murder only if the prosecutor could show the offender had the intent to kill the victim. This differs from motivation.

My guess as to why the high school boys from the Woodlands did not get life imprisonment or the death penalty is because the jury found them guilty of second degree murder...that they intended to beat the guy up, but they did not intend to kill him...he just died anyway. I don't know if that is factually the case, but this must have been their decision based on the punishment given.

------------------

 

Part of the problem is that states define the term, and every state is a little different. I did a little searching, (thanks for the site SamCassell) and found differences with California and Kentucky.

I think the general difference between 1st and 2nd is premeditation. 1st degree is premeditated (planned), or the result of another felony where murder is a possible result. 2nd is not pre-meditated, such as a crime of passion or anger. Manslaughter is unintentional, but the result of a persons actions.

------------------
Stay Cool...

 

Outlaw, I think this thread unintentionally diverted into a lot of topics.

-- I've actually viewed myself as an independent, because I think both sides of the isle have some good points. I probably identify with the Republicans more, but part of it is I distrust the current administration. We have had some really good democratic leaders in our time -- such as Lloyd Bentson and Lieberman, but they're often overshadowed.

- One of my best friends is gay. He struggled with the issue through college, and after he told me what was going on, we continued to be great friends -- probably even better because he didn't have to hide this. It's certainly not something I agree with, but it was his choice. I also got to know a lot of people from his "other" circle, and became friends with them. There's a lot more to people -- male, female, gay or strait, than this one aspect of their lives.

- It's really hard to respond to your question without real specifics or doing some research -- especially as to what I would think of how "Republicans" have responded to specific pieces of hate crime legislation -- because there's often a lot more involved. I'll make an attempt to respond in more general terms.


Personally, I tend to agree with the idea that murder is murder, and should be prosecuted as such. There is no civilized society in the world that condones it -- in fact, the sanctity of human life is one of the few things universally agreed on. (at least from being taken by other people, governments being another topic.)

The laws we have cover murder -- and give it the strictest sentences in the penal code. Texas's policy of separate portions of trials makes a lot of sense. It gives the defendant the ability to argue innocence until proven guilty, then evidence is presented as to the seriousness of the crime. It's not perfect, but it's designed to give equal treatment to all cases, while allowing for varying circumstances. It should allow for the more heinous crimes to receive stricter penalties.

Jeff is absolutely right though -- it doesn't always work the way it should. That's because people are fallible, and human emotions are not consistent. So they have tried to put in more consistency through a number of different means, including mandatory sentencing, judicial sentencing (as opposed to a jury), judicial modification of sentences, and hate crime legislation.

The "hate crime" issue has been a poorly defined and implemented set of laws. It covers a very specific type of crime well -- racial based crimes -- which is what it was designed to do. It helps make up for some of serious inequities in the system. It doesn't address the "hate" issue very well though and opens up more questions -- when does someone kill someone they like? When are any murders logical? When is anyone not outraged at the senseless death of a loved one / friend / acquaintance? When are the lives of some people become more valuable than others?

On the original question, the argument I've heard for not expanding the hate crime legislation is that these laws were designed to compensate for a specific inadequacies, and by adding categories you dilute the original intent of the statutes, and weakens the more general murder laws. It would "cheapen" the deaths of people who fall outside of these categories -- making those sentences lighter and harder to come by.

Laws against "hate crimes" also sounds more strict -- but makes cases much more difficult to prosecute, because the prosecutors must prove not only that the crime occurred, but why a person did the crime. Trying to pinpoint what a person was thinking when they committed a crime is pretty much impossible, and it opens doors to other issues, like the mental state of the criminal. (And opens the door to an insanity defense). With the "dual trial" system it causes a lot of other issues to enter the guilt or innocence phase, when the jury should be presented with a simple question -- yes or no -- which is difficult enough by itself.



------------------
Stay Cool...

 

One other thought on the "dilution" of hate crime legislation. Adding a group that has been the target of hate makes a lot of sense. But in a bigger picture it can easily get out of hand.

Consider the Civil Rights Act -- A set of laws that was needed, and gave protection that couldn't be given in any other way. Since it was implemented, it has become one of the most amended and misunderstood pieces of legislation ever created -- and has become so complicated that it has approached the league as the tax code.

The Act called for people to be treated equally on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. It was later interpreted as prohibiting discrimination based on these categories, and every piece of it has been defined and expanded almost exponentially, including being the basis for our sexual harassment laws. It now provides remedies for discrimination against minorities that covers something like 90% of the population -- and the only people excluded are white heterosexual males of Anglo-Saxon descent born in the United States between 1950 and 1982.

Wouldn't it just be easier to treat everyone equally, based on what they have to bring to the table?

------------------
Stay Cool...

 

There shouldn't have to be a law that "makes" a judge be more aggressive towards defendants. That decision was ****ed up. Instead of making new laws they should simply give that judge the boot.

Set a precedence. Make an example.

It's kinda like in NY where all those cops got off scot-free for shooting an innocent man 41 times. Or like the LA trial where all those cops got off for beating down Rodney King.

It's sick. As in real life, bias exists everywhere. Which is why we have to have these stupid laws. But at the same time these laws make sure that equality does not happen as fast as it should. Even in punishment there is segregation and bias.

Catch-22, isn't it?

------------------
RocketFuel is dead!

 

outlaw - unfortunately in our legal system, simply stabbing someone does not necessarily mean that you 'intended' to kill him. My wife was on a capital murder trial in Houston around 10 years ago. The 2 questions they had to answer in the sentencing portion were as follows:

1. Did he intend to kill him?
2. Will he be a continuing threat to society.

They were able to unequivocally say "Yes" to #1 because the killer forced the person to lay on his stomach and then shot him in the back of the head. Had he shot the guy without those mitigating circumstances, his defense could have argued that he did not "intend" to commit murder.

------------------

 

dcsports, I don't know if the murderer was a Republican or Democrat, I'm not sure he is even into politics.

I equate this to a white supremist walking into a minority bar and gunning down a minority.

Imo, I think Republicans are more against the "hate crime" label than Democrats.

------------------
"Well, I don't know what I received my honorary degree in, but judging by the fine sisters in the crowd, I hope it is gynecology." Mike Tyson speaks to the crowd after receiving his honorary degree from a college in Ohio.

 

Spacecity - excellent points and I agree.


------------------
"UNBEATABLE"

 

Speaking of Anti-Discrimination Laws, the Usually-Conservative and Republican-Controlled Fort Worth City Council has passed an ordinance protecting homosexuals from discrimination (much to the consternation of the Republican Leadership who, by the way, don't usually speak for the majority of Republicans):

Fort Worth council prohibits anti-gay bias
09/26/2000

By Laurie Fox / The Dallas Morning News

FORT WORTH – A nearly unanimous City Council approved a measure Tuesday to extend citywide discrimination protection to include gays and lesbians.

By a 6-1 vote after two hours of fervent testimony on both sides of the issue, the council voted to add sexual orientation as a protected class in housing, employment and public accommodations throughout the city.

Violation of the ordinance, which will take effect in about a week, will be considered a misdemeanor, subject to a $500 fine

Councilman Chuck Silcox, who long had opposed the idea, led the effort in favor of it this time after more than a year of discussions with gay community leaders and others.

He acknowledged that his actions aren't popular with conservative Tarrant County Republicans, but he said he believed strongly in the issue.

"This was not the easy way out for me, but it's the right thing to do," Mr. Silcox told a packed council chamber. "I've been told this will ruin my political career, and, if it does, so be it. This is not something I decided overnight. This is an anti-discrimination ordinance and nothing more."

Fort Worth's measure is among the strongest in the state. Dallas' ordinance, for example, prohibits discrimination only in the city's hiring and employment practices.

The move to amend the municipal laws to include sexual orientation came after eight years of discussion and inaction by the council. City leaders most recently declined to tackle the issue in January 1999 when Mr. Silcox led the movement to have it indefinitely tabled.

On Tuesday, supporters of the measure erupted in cheers and applause after the vote and praised Mr. Silcox for taking a stand.

"Today we've seen the results of several years' work on this issue," said Beverly Fletcher, who supports the move. "I knew this would happen at some point; I'm just thrilled that it's happened sooner than later. This says a lot about the city's growth."

Councilman Clyde Picht, who voted against the amendment, said that the debate has been an emotional one but that he's against it because "it's not a civil-rights issue; it's bad policy."

Others who opposed the measure accused the council of yielding to a gay agenda, saying the ordinance will impose sanctions against those who don't agree with "alternative lifestyles."

"They're setting forth a public policy not based in very strong reasoning," said Chuck Anderson, executive director of the Texas Christian Coalition. "The only basis for this is homosexual conduct."

Others urged council members not to take on an issue that could open employers to unnecessary liability in hiring and firing.

"This will set Fort Worth on a slippery slope," said Pat Carlson, chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party and a former local leader of the Eagle Forum, a conservative Christian group. "This is giving special rights."

But Mike McKay, who supported the move, said he doesn't want special rights, just equal rights.

"This is about fairness and equality," he said. "This is not about not giving me rights, but protecting my rights as an individual. It's time for Fort Worth to stand up and recognize the benefits and contributions of all citizens."

Dee Jay Johannessensaid he was discriminated against when he sought a one-bedroom apartment in Fort Worth with his partner and has been subject to name-calling when shopping. "This will allow us equal protection," he said. "This is what's right for this city."

Councilwoman Wendy Davis, who voted for the measure, said city officials sought to extend protection from discrimination, not change the public's mind about gay rights.

"This is a human-rights and a human-integrity issue," she said.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
DFW Sports Board

 

Another potential problem with hate crime legislation is that it can be used against the minority party where there is no inequity in current prosecutions. How long before there are African-American defendants being charged with hate crimes in any crime where a white person was the victim? The dorr can swing both ways and offer the unintended consequence of being used against the people who are supposed to benefit from it (African-Americans who are more likely to be convicted and get longer sentences than white defendants, etc.)

We can all find many examples of trials where the defendants were not properly punished on all sides of the racial/sexual/gender spectrum, so individual examples are pretty meaningless. I can't go and look at all sorts of trials to see how abnormal the sentences were when compared to similar crimes. Maybe the sentences were abnormal when compared to other similar trials, maybe it wasn't. Picking some cases here and there doesn't give the total picture.

(And anecdotal evidence about parole times is especially meaningless. Had the kid who got 45 years comitted the crime in 1996, he'd have to serve about 22.5 years before being eligible for parole without any hate crime legislation being added on. Without making any special-class laws, we've increased the percentage of the sentence that crimals have to serve. When juries are doling out punishments, they aren't thinking of when the defendant can be out on parole generally.)

Personally, I don't mind anti-discrimination laws (even when they apply to gays). I'm not a fan of hate crime laws specifically because of the problems that they do have, but if that's the best we can do to smooth out some of the inequities in the system, then having them is maybe better than not having them. (If we're going to have hate crime legislation, though, I don't see why sexual orientation shouldn't also be protected).

------------------
Houston Sports Board
DFW Sports Board

 

I've already stated my opinions on the actual topic, and I don't want to take the discussion too far off point. But Dave here is incorrect on his understanding of murder, under Texas law, and I wanted to clear things up.

Read this for the code section on murder: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe001900.html#pe001.19.01

Basically, the degree of murder does not depend entirely on intent. Dave's example, felony murder, was incorrect. Any type of murder (including felony murder) is considered 1st degree, regardless of intent. During the punishment phase the criminal has the opportunity to prove that there were factors, such as heat of passion, which should reduce the crime to 2nd degree.

All of this also ignores the different charges for a homicide, other than murder - such as manslaughter or capital murder. The commission of a homicide on the basis of race or sexual preference could easily be incorporated into a charge of capital murder (carrying a greater punishment) just like murder-for-hire, cop-killing, multiple killings, and murder of young children.

As to the Woodlands killing, the reason can't have been what you said. It's gotta be a capital murder to get capital punishment, and this murder doesn't seem to fit any of the current qualifications.

------------------

 

outlaw -- please don't refer to me as "republican". "Republican" is a political connotation. You don't have to be in to politics to have a point of view. Although I follow politics at times and find it interesting, I don't care to assign my views to a particular political party. I have plenty of views that I'm sure aren't in the Republican platform. I'm an independent.

I tend to agree with SpaceCity and others in that all murders should be treated the same. Of course I can also see the reason for wanting crimes related to race in particular to be assigned a higher punishment. If what you say is true, and religion is also included under hate crimes, I think that is an inconsistency. After all, you do have the choice to decide what religion you wish to practice. Whether you have the choice to be homosexual has yet to be proven, to my knowledge. Of course if religion is included, there is little justification as to why sexual orientation should not be, in my opinion. But on the other hand, if religion and sexual preference receive special treatment as far as crimes go, could we not assign a higher penalty for those creating a crime against, say, Utah Jazz fans?

 

I think the issue is more about protection for those who are singled out regularly for hate crimes rather than special punishment for the criminals.

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not doesn't really matter because they ARE singled out. If religious groups are singled out, they demand more protection because it is our responsibility as a society to protect our fellow humans, particularly the one's that are picked on more often.

If people picked on a friend because he was different in some way, I would only assume that most of us would be more protective of that person and have a tendancy to change our behavior as a result.

These laws are designed as much for prevention as they are for punishment.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

I wonder how many of those republicans are gay themselfs but have to keep quite because they are afraid of the remnifications it might bring .

------------------
Life moves pretty fast, If you don't stop and look once in a while you might miss it!! ... Ferris Bueler