Re: Alleged Wyoming hate crime

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

As one other small example.  What exact crime is committed when 
a cross is burned in someone's yard?  Without hate crime legislation 
there might be a trespass (a relatively minor offense), and there 
might be willful destruction of property--although since the torchers 
are burning presumably their own property, that may not fit the 
particular state's definition of that crime.  Hate crime legislation 
can, if the legislature chooses, add an element to the crime such as 
"with intent to intimidate, threaten, . . ." (I have not surveyed the 
language of model legislation or what has actually been enacted in 
various states).  With that added element, the consequences or 
punishment for the crime can be appropriately enhanced compared to 
the simple trespass crime.  
Certainly, if the criminals choose instead to burn down a church of 
largely minority membership, that is a crime in every state.  Whether 
we choose to enhance the penalty when it can be proven (it still has 
to convince a jury of EVERY element of the crime beyond a reasonable 
doubt) that the crime was committed with an added element of racial 
or national origin motivation is a matter of society's choice.  
Individually, I favor the POSSIBILITY of more severe punishment of 
one who burns down the church for demonstrable "hate crime" reasons 
than one who burns down a house or building for other reasons.
An added factor for me is similar to Ms. McHugh's:  I think it is 
important that we as a society make it clear through legislation AND 
enforcement that we will not tolerate the indimidation,  injury, or 
degrading treatment of a person or group by reason of their inclusion 
in or affiliation with a specific group.  My primary concern is that 
the legislation be written in a way that it accomplishes the purposes 
for which it is written with a narrow enough stroke that it not 
intrude into areas not intended.

Mike Curley


Date:          Thu, 15 Oct 
1998 08:02:35 +0800 (PST) From:          Maree McHugh 
<emchugm@gritman.org> Subject:       Re: Alleged Wyoming hate crime 
To:            Briana LeClaire <mmsmom1@yahoo.com> Cc:            
vision2020@moscow.com

The differentiation of a "hate" crime would be important.  Recall when the
domestic violence laws were defined and enacted;  perhaps defining hate
crimes will bring increased awareness,  and hopefully some
semblence of  protection to those
who are targeted by such acts of inhumanity and small minded stupidity
We need to analyze and understand why hate crimes  occur.

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Briana LeClaire wrote:

>  >It does suggest that Mr. Probasco's question might 
> > deserve further analysis and discussion.
> 
> Well then let's analyze and question it further.  Professor Goble? 
> Linda Pall?  Any other lawyers out there?  Explain to Professor
> Probasco and me why we need hate crime legislation when assault,
> battery, slander and murder are already crimes.
> 
> Maybe lawyers are the exact wrong people to be asking, but I'll chance
> it.  I'd address this question to Tom Trail (a lawmaker) too, but to
> my knowledge he's out of the country.
> 
> Thank you -- Briana LeClaire
> 
> curley@cypher.turbonet.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think most of us would say that Civil Rights legislation 
> > of the '60s  made a significant difference in the opportunity 
> > for members of minority groups to participate in many of the 
> > social and economic and personal benefits to which they had been 
> > previously denied.  Unfortunately it did not necessarily change 
> > the hatred or vile conduct.  
> > I understand the issues that prompted Mr. Probasco's question to be 
> > (a) how making it a "hate crime" to commit an act that is already a 
> > "crime" will more likely deter the conduct or increase enforcement, 
> > and (b) whether federal involvement makes more sense than 
> > encouraging or demanding individual state legislation--assuming that 
> > additional legislation makes sense.  There have been instances of 
> > hate crime legislation being written such that conduct that none of 
> > us reasonably wants to be forbidden, ie. criminalized, has not only 
> > been within the ambit of the statute, but was also enforced at the 
> > insistence of some allegedly aggrieved party.  
> > None of those observations is to say hate crime legislation is 
> > inappropriate.  It does suggest that Mr. Probasco's question might 
> > deserve further analysis and discussion.
> > 
> > Mike Curley
> > 
> >  Date:          Wed, 14 
> > Oct 1998 11:48:17 -0700 To:            vision2020@moscow.com From:    
> >       Robert Hoffmann <escape@alt-escape.com> Subject:       Re: 
> > Alleged Wyoming hate crime
> > 
> > At 11:11 AM 10/14/98 -0700, you wrote:
> > >While I deplore the sorry event in Wyoming, I do not perceive how
> > >including the federal government would have changed anything.  
> > >
> > >Wyoming already has laws against assault and battery (and murder). 
> What
> > >difference would another layer of legislation have provided?
> > >	Bob Probasco
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Scott Dredge wrote:
> > >> I believe that we should enact federal legislation to uniformly
> enforce
> > >> punishment across the nation in cases involving hate crimes.
> > 
> > What difference did Civil Rights Legislation of the 1960's make?
> > Robert Hoffmann                      115 N. Jackson St., Suite D
> > Alt-Escape Adventures                Moscow, ID  83843  USA
> > http://www.alt-escape.com            Phone: (208) 883-0642
> > 	             Fax:   (208) 883-8545
> > 
> > Mike Curley
> > reply to: curley@turbonet.com
> > 208-882-3536
> > 
> > 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 



Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536