Who Saw This Coming?
August 9th, 2007 | by Craig |So now you can be charged with a hate crime solely due to the sexual orientation of the victim, regardless of whether there is actually anything to suggest that it was a “hate” crime.
Wow. Who’da ever thunk that?
19 Responses to “Who Saw This Coming?”
By Mark Tokarski on Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
Carbon offsets are a market-oriented solution and carry very little weight with me. I don’t think there’ll be much in the way of progress towards offsetting the effects of global warming from the marketplace. The warming problem is not immediate to people - they cannot connect actions with consequences.
Alas, any solution of any meaningful impact at all will come from one source - government.
But people are convinced government is evil incarnate. So, nothing workable from that source either.
Time to break out the champagne. Band is playing.
By Craig on Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think that carbon offsets are strictly a market solution. In a market solution, you get tangible goods and/or services for your money.
Carbon offsets offer nothing more than a nebulous promise of investment in clean/green technology which gives you nothing in return except for a case of the warm fuzzies for “being proactive” and “doing something about the problem.”
By Mark Tokarski on Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
I tend to agree. I’d better hightail it outta here.
By Craig on Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
MIght want to stay away for a couple of days, then. I’m working up something in my Drafts folder that will give you the hives.
By mtliberty on Apr 27, 2007 | Reply
Here is a technology that may actually be promising in carbon capture (may be hyped to):
http://montanalibertyproject.blogspot.com/2007/03/technology-and-carbon.html
If that’s not possible, this is even cooler, at least in theory:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/mr_fusion.html#comments
By Dave Budge on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
Who saw this coming? Funny you should ask.
By Erica on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
That crime happened within walking distance from my front door, and one of the perpetrators, before he was arrested, actually used to live less than a block away from me.
Unless there is a piece of evidence to suggest otherwise, it is my understanding that the reason those three perpetrators were in a gay chat room to begin with was to solicit the attentions of a gay man with the expressed intention of ultimately robbing him.
That Michael Sandy ultimately died of his injuries, I am sure, was not part of the plan, but they did have every intention of specifically robbing a man who was gay.
There is far too much hatred in the world.
By Steve T. on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
OOPS!! Gosh, Craig- if you’re looking for an instance of a judge overreaching on hate-crimes legislation, you might want to find an instance where the judge actually… you know… over-reached. THEN you can use that particular instance as an excuse to bash the whole concept.
It was a good attempt, though. I commend you.
By Craig on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
From TFA:
The judge, Jill Konviser of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, said in a written order that prosecutors *need show only that the victim was chosen because of his sexual orientation* to pursue charges under the state’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000. The law provides for longer sentences on conviction for crimes motivated by racial, religious and other characteristics of a victim.
Emphasis mine.
I don’t dispute that they chose their victim because he was gay. But there’s nothing that suggests they did it because they “hate” gay men. As Erica noted above, they most likely just wanted to rob him, and being gay, they may have deemed him an easy mark.
Big difference between that and a “hate crime.”
It was a nice job of missing the point, though. (Hmmm…this seems to be a recurring theme with you.)
By Craig on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
Whether or not it’s a “hate crime,” those guys definitely deserve a tall tree and a short rope.
By Erica on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Absolutely. The crime wasn’t so much motivated by a raging hatred for gays as it was motivated by the prospect of robbing a gay man who, because of some kind of presumed lack of beefy masculinity, they figured, as you said, was a soft target.
A hate crime is what happened to Matthew Shephard a few years ago in Cheyenne, Wyoming…tied up to a fence and brutally murdered exclusively BECAUSE he was gay.
Not to sound like a broken record, but yeah…those guys need to pay with their lives. How they continue to live with themselves and their conscience after committing a crime of this nature is simply beyond my capacity of understanding.
By Dave Budge on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Steve, if you subscribe to this being a hate crime then you would hold out that rape is usually qualifies too since male rapists usually pick women as their victims.
By Wulfgar on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
I hate to say it, Erica, but you’re actually arguing *for* this being a hate crime. If they chose the victim based on their prejudices concerning a stereotype, then that’s pretty much the definition of a “hate crime”.
(For the record, one of the gay men I’ve been acquainted with in my life was a state bodybuilding champion and successful golden gloves boxer. Wouldn’t these assh*les have been surprised if *he* had showed up?)
By Dave Budge on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
So if they had targeted midgets, pacifists, senior citizens or any other class that seems stereotypically vulnerable would that fit the definition of a hate crime? Are most crimes of men on women hate crimes because of their perceived as vulnerabilities?
By Erica on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Hi Wulfgar…
Re: “If they chose the victim based on their prejudices concerning a stereotype, then that’s pretty much the definition of a ‘hate crime’.”
Yes & no, and I should probably correct one thing I said, though I definitely stand by the rest of it: When I stated that “The crime wasn’t so much motivated by a raging hatred for gays as it was motivated by the prospect of robbing a gay man,” I didn’t mean to imply that what happened to Michael Sandy wasn’t a hate crime, by semi-negating my statement about Matthew Shephard.
However, what happened to Matthew Shephard was purely motivated by hatred, versus what happened to Michael Sandy, which, I should point out was no less terrible, but was motivated by the stereotyping of homosexuals.
I think their incentive to rob him, while wholly repugnant, was not AS as severe as the impetus to intentionally set out to murder someone, because they could not have foreseen in that situation that Michael Sandy would actually run out in the middle of oncoming traffic on the Belt Parkway.
It was, unquestionably, a hate crime, and I should have made my point clearer to begin with, and I think, as Craig said, they should be hung from a short rope on a tall tree, but the circumstances and motivations behind both crimes were uniquely different, and punishments should adequately fit the crime, should they not?
As for “one of the gay men I’ve been acquainted with in my life was a state bodybuilding champion and successful golden gloves boxer. Wouldn’t these assh*les have been surprised if he had showed up?”
I wish it had been him that showed up, instead. There might be one more good man left in the world today, versus three scumbuckets from Brooklyn, who the world has absolutely no use for, and whose life prison sentences (I’m sure) will be paid for by my tax dollars.
To conclude with an understatement, it’s just a very, very unfortunate situation.
By Steve T. on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Well dammit, I knew I shouldn’t have commented here. Hate crimes ain’t my cup o’tea. I just saw this as an opportunity to give Craig a little poke. All the points made here are good, and I’m just gonna go ahead and back off of what I said earlier.
My bad.
By Craig on Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
This whole situation is perfectly illustrative of why I am leery of “hate crime” legislation. The original intent was to give harsher punishment for crimes that were along the lines of cross burnings, lynchings, etc., that were specifically intended to terrorize a group of people.
But, in a case like the one we are discussing, how do you divine intent and/or motivation? Was their intent to rob a gay man? It seems to be the case. Was their motivation hate? It doesn’t seem to be.
Let’s look again at what the judge said: “prosecutors need show only that the victim was chosen because of his sexual orientation.”
That statement seems to me to negate the original intent of hate crimes and create “protected groups.” Which has been my (and others) concern all along.
By Mark Tokarski on Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
I hate hatea crimes legislation - it takes us to the boundary of Orwell’s world - we no longer judge the action, but get inside the mind of the criminal. Deeds by themselves are worthy of punishment. Respect the privacy of the criminal. Hang him for robbery and murder. That’s enough for me.
There’s enough hatred coming from the Christian Right to set a cross on fire with an evil glare. Shall we imprison them?
By Craig on Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
Just couldn’t resist, could you?