vision2020
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Alleged Wyoming hate crime



I think setting a cross on fire in someone's yard would also fall
under arson.

I realize we prosecute "intent" all the time.  For example, "intent"
is what separates the degrees of murder.

I wonder what would happen to blind justice under hate crime laws. 
Would it as bad for Louis Farrakhan's thugs to murder a white man just
because he was white as it would be for the KKK to murder a black man
because of his color?  

Another thing.  What if I went out in the street and started shouting
invective against stay-at-home-moms?  Screaming they were a bunch of
Maury Povitch-watching, bon-bon eating trash?  Saying I hated
stay-at-home-moms simply because they stay at home?  That's
intimidation (assuming I shout loud enough) based upon their inclusion
in a specific group.

Or is the whole thing just silly?  Shouldn't we just prosecute
murderers for murder and obnoxious shouters for disturbing the peace?

Briana

curley@cypher.turbonet.com wrote:
>
> 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
> 
> 
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




Back to TOC