Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
P.S. the story with the billboard came from one of Ty's solid "sources" that also speculates the US Government directed the 9/11 attacks.

The story accompanying the photo admits that Clear Channel calls the photo a fraud (easy enough to confirm) and that of the 2 alleged billboards, one was paid for by an individual, not Clear Channel. Still creepy, but not so sinister. Ty forgot to put those parts in his post.

Fuck off, Hank. I saw a first-hand description of the billboards here. That person linked to the picture to illustrate what he was talking about. I didn't read the story below, but since you say I'm misrepresenting it, I'll print it in full so others can decide:

• A billboard recently put up in Orlando bearing a smiling photograph of President Bush with the words “Our Leader” is raising eyebrows among progressives who feel the poster is akin to that of propaganda used by tyrannical regimes.
  
  RAW STORY confirmed the billboard’s existence Monday evening. At our behest, a member of an Orlando media organization drove past the billboard on two occasions and verified that it was indeed the one pictured.
  
  The billboard pictured, which is on I-4, says that it is a “political public service message brought to you by Clear Channel Outdoor.”
  
  The member, who declined to be named out of concern for their employer, discovered a second billboard bearing the same image along the same route, paid for by Charles W. Clayton Jr.
  
  Clear Channel Outdoor Orlando said they could not respond to requests for comment this week because their press person was “away.” They referred calls to their San Antonio corporate parent, which did not return two messages for comment.
  
  One Orlando resident penned a concerned letter to the (registration-restricted) Orlando Sentinel on Saturday about the billboard. As the site is restricted to members, the letter appears below.
  
  “The first thing I thought was, when was the last time I have seen a president on a billboard?” wrote resident Dianna Lawson. “Didn’t Saddam Hussein have his picture up everywhere? What next, a statue?”
  
  Reporters at the Orlando Sentinel told RAW STORY they’d also seen the photograph.
  
  Others said they’d seen a similar sign in Jacksonville along I-95.
  
  “We don’t do political advertising,” said Clear Channel sales representative Brad Parsons in Jacksonville. He said the photograph was bogus.
  
  A second Jacksonville rep acknowledged the company did political advertising but only when paid for by a third party. When asked if he would look at the picture for verification, he declined to give out his email address.

[SlaveNoMore]

Santorum
Why shouldn't a jury be allowed to consider that motivation as an aggraviting factor in deciding whether to apply the death penalty? How is allowing a jury to consider a criminal's motive "ludicrous"?

Who is questioning whether motive shouldn't be considered?

[Although again, this report raises doubts as to the motive - the story makes it sound as if his sexuality was secondary]

The issue is whether it should be an additional crime/longer sentencing if the victim happens to be gay, black, muslim, polish etc.

[SlaveNoMore]

Santorum
But that's how hate crime statutes work, no? It's been a while, but I recall that hate crime statutes typically provide for increased penalties if the fact-finder determines that the criminal was motivated by the victim's (real or perceived) membership in a protected class. Why shouldn't our society punish more severely those who target its weakest members?

You want to go down that slippery slope?

Ther elderly are pretty weak. Why not charge the next gang-banger that mugs a little old lady as a hate crime?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because it offers additional protection to certain groups of potential victims that is not available to others. Because it implies that attacking/killing a [__fill in the blank__] is somehow worse than attacking/killing other people, and therefore has the effect of establishing a harsher set of sentencing options for [_not blank_] perps. Because it has the effect of imposing criminal penalties based on thought instead of action. I find that quite disturbing.

If you kill a black person because he is black, rather than because you are married to him and find him smelly, it has a more profound effect on the rest of us. The former crime affects all black people in a way the latter does not. And you are not punishing thought, you are punishing the action of killing. This is like suggesting that it's wrong to punish first-degree murder more severely than manslaughter because you are punishing the intent behind it, and not just the effects. Um, yeah.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Who is questioning whether motive shouldn't be considered?

[Although again, this report raises doubts as to the motive - the story makes it sound as if his sexuality was secondary]

The issue is whether it should be an additional crime/longer sentencing if the victim happens to be gay, black, muslim, polish etc.

I'm not aware of any hate crime statute that imposes longer sentencing or makes it an additional crime if the victim "happens to be" a member of a protected class. The statutes I'm familiar with impose additional penalties if the attack was motivated by bias.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You want to go down that slippery slope?

Ther elderly are pretty weak. Why not charge the next gang-banger that mugs a little old lady as a hate crime?

If you don't think that the fact that the gang-banger chose a little old lady as his victim will not be a consideration in his sentencing, you know very little about criminal law.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
eta a few examples: In California and other states, there are penalty enhancements for murder if the victim is a peace officer.

Don't agree with this either. Are cops' lives that more valuable than ordinanry citizens?

If the murder was committed by shooting a gun from a motor vehicle. If the murder was related to gang activity.

I'd argue that these are different examples, as the crime itself is regarded as more dangerous - we aren't differentiating the victim.

In addition, in capital cases in most states including California, the victim's family can testify about the impact of the killing on them. In other words, a capital defendant who kills a homeless man without any family is less likely to be executed than one whose victim has a particularly eloquent widow or parents -- regardless of whether the killer knew or cared about the victim's family status.

Once again, this a shameful elevation of the value of one victim's life over another.

But again, this isn't changing the crimes involved. This affects sentencing.[/QUOTE]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If you don't think that the fact that the gang-banger chose a little old lady as his victim will not be a consideration in his sentencing, you know very little about criminal law.

Since I know very little about criminal law, let me ask: If that's the case, why do we need hate crime laws? Why can't the sentencing take into account that the victim was selecting for his race, just as it would take into account that a little old lady was chosen?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
If you don't think that the fact that the gang-banger chose a little old lady as his victim will not be a consideration in his sentencing, you know very little about criminal law.

Sentencing Sidd. SENTENCING. Not the crime as charged.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why should that be a factor? Should a white man that kills a black man because he is black get a stiffer sentence than a white man that kills another white man for sport?

Yes. Next question?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not aware of any hate crime statute that imposes longer sentencing or makes it an additional crime if the victim "happens to be" a member of a protected class. The statutes I'm familiar with impose additional penalties if the attack was motivated by bias.

Shortly after the dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, there were efforts to bring forth hate-crime legislation in Texas. The measure died in the state Senate, and many thought that if the legislature had taken homosexuality as a protected class, it would have passed with flying colors. Later, in the presidential debates, Bush noted that James Byrd's killers are on death row without hate crime legislation, and there's not much more that the state can do to punish them for their crime.

I'm troubled that our legislature has difficulty punishing someone for beating the shit out of someone just because he's gay. It happens a lot around here. Though I'm not surprised.

ETA: Statistics supporting the bill from Texas Department of Public Safety in 1997.

Racial: 64.4 percent of total

Anti-black -- 167 incidents, 46.4 percent of total
Anti-white -- 46 incidents, 12.8 percent of total
Anti-Asian -- 12 incidents, 3.3 percent of total

Sexual Orientation: 17.8 percent of total

Anti-male homosexual -- 41 incidents, 11.4 percent of total
Anti-female homosexual -- 8 incidents, 2.2 percent of total
Anti-homosexual (male & female) -- 15 incidents, 4.2 percent of total

Religious: 9.2 percent of total

Anti-Jewish -- 21 incidents, 5.8 percent of total
Anti-Protestant -- 7 incidents, 1.9 percent of total
Anti-Islam -- 1 incident, 0.3 percent of total

Ethnicity: 8.0 percent of total

Anti-Hispanic -- 22 incidents, 6.1 percent of total
Anti-Arab -- 3 incidents, 0.8 percent of total
Anti-other Ethnic/National origin -- 4 incidents, 1.1 percent of total

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sentencing Sidd. SENTENCING. Not the crime as charged.

Elder Abuse, Slave. ELDER ABUSE. The crime as charged.

See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code section 368:

§ 368. Crimes against elders and dependent adults; Legislative findings; Infliction of pain, injury or endangerment; Theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft; False imprisonment

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that crimes against elders and dependent adults are deserving of special consideration and protection, not unlike the special protections provided for minor children, because elders and dependent adults may be confused, on various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent, and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their own behalf.

(b) (1) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed six thousand dollars ($ 6,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.


And SENTENCING too. See, e.g., Cal Rule of Court 4.421:

Rule 4.421. Circumstances in aggravation

Circumstances in aggravation include:

(a) Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, including the fact that:

...

(3) The victim was particularly vulnerable.



I see no qualitative difference between charging someone with an additional crime that bears an additional sentence because of the victim's age/vulnerability, and charging only one crime but giving the aggravated sentence level because of the victim's age/vulnerability.

Actually, I do see a difference: If it's an additional crime then there's at least some chance the sentence will be concurrent. Not so when the victim's characteristics are used as an aggravating factor. In other words, the opposite of what you suggest.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because it offers additional protection to certain groups of potential victims that is not available to others. Because it implies that attacking/killing a [__fill in the blank__] is somehow worse than attacking/killing other people, and therefore has the effect of establishing a harsher set of sentencing options for [_not blank_] perps. Because it has the effect of imposing criminal penalties based on thought instead of action. I find that quite disturbing.

Dissent. Enhanced penalties for hate crimes are enacted because hate crimes are not merely offenses against the victim, but offenses against our society itself. To kill a person because of that person's status as a member of a particular group is to attack the notion of a democracy that embraces the particular group as a part. And the enhanced penalty is not based upon thought, but upon the acting. That is the reason we have hate crime statutes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I know very little about criminal law, let me ask: If that's the case, why do we need hate crime laws? Why can't the sentencing take into account that the victim was selecting for his race, just as it would take into account that a little old lady was chosen?

There are a few reasons, I think, but I believe the most important is that making it a separate crime vests more discretion in the prosecutor than in the judge. Making it an enhancement or aggravating factor does the reverse (although there are enhancements that are mandatory).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I am lukewarm at best on hate crime legislation, generally agree with you, though for a somewhat different reason. I don't like that the inquiry threatens to encroach on protected speech.

I would submit that the hate crime statutes don't impinge upon either speech or thought, but are directly aimed at action. In our democracy, we are granted the right to think that gays/blacks/whites/communists/punks/furries are somehow less deserving of protection of the laws, or less than full members of society. We are not, however, allowed to disregard the law and put those thoughts into action. Doing so is an attack on the very freedoms that allow us our freedom to think and speak as we believe.