Right, my 2 cents. I don't support hate crimes as an initial measure. cos they don't work by themselves (more inside) -- Welcome To The Crzy House

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:07:58 06/11/03 Wed
Author: Bester
Subject: Right, my 2 cents. I don't support hate crimes as an initial measure. cos they don't work by themselves (more inside)
In reply to: John 's message, "Hate Crime Laws" on 10:32:11 06/10/03 Tue

The biggest problem with hate crimes legislation, as I see it, is that they target the wrong nexus. They are an after the fact measure. The gay, black, muslim, whoever... that person has already been beaten up, robbed, or killed. An increased sentence doesn't change that fact. As a sign of societal condemnation for violence motivated by hate, then they are a good thing. As a deterrent or anything practical to decrease anti gay violence, I firmly believe that, by themselves, they do nothing or worse than nothing.

Why worse than nothing? Well, its not gonna deter offenders. The idea that a higher sentence will deter offenders requires those offenders to be able to perform a rational cost-benefit analysis. To me, the very idea of committing a crime against someone solely because they are gay is inherently irrational. You get no benefit out of a gay bashing, and the penalty is severe: possible prison time and a criminal record. These are not rational people we are talking about. Higher sentences are not what is required.

I believe more of an emphasis needs to be put on widespread education on issues surrounding anti-gay prejudice. Some people will argue that this is unrealistic and will achieve no real change. Well hate crimes legislation certainly won't. I wouldn't be against HCL in combination with such education. As for an allegation of education not affecting change... well, I can only say that I firmly believe that it can, combined with non-discrimination legislation. But even non-discrimination statutes are only of limited use: prejudiced employers, landlords, etc, can get round them. The only way to effect permanent change is to re-educate the populace. PART of this can involve legislative change, but only a small part, in my opinion. We have to target hate crimes before they happen, not afterwards.

In brief response to Lance's points:

"Until there is a broadened Federal hate crimes bill, there will be little progress towards the elimination of gays as the last socially-acceptable scapegoats for many in society. "

I can't agree with that statement. Hate crimes legislation won't directly affect social attitudes. Its a legal measure, and affects the legal treatment of the perpetrators of crimes against gays. A hate crimes bill also fails to address the nauseating homosexual advance defence, which, independently of hate crimes, needs to be legislated out of existance. "He squeezed my thigh so I had to slit his throat". Verdict? Acquitted on all charges (real case from Australia).

"Rather than making our lives more dangerous, while hate crimes bills do not directly discourage anti-gay violence, they help to create a climate of intolerance towards intolerance."

So its essentially a political, not practical, statement. As I said, I think there are more practical things that can be done before we turn to introducing hate crimes legislation.

"We shouldn't have hate crime laws because they accomplish little in punishing or deterring hate crimes. Following that rationale we shouldn't bother having a law against murder because people murder other people everyday."

Thats not even logic. What you'd have to do is compare murder rates in a jurisdiction where murder is legal to one where its not. As it stands, that statement is pure, empty rhetoric. (sorry lancie, lol)

"We owe it to their memory that they did not die in vain. They are not forgotten. Their lives had meaning and were valued. They were loved. They were human beings"

I hesitate to even comment on this, for fear of being branded an insensitive bastard. Its an utter tragedy that these people were killed, It horrifies me to see the numbers. But saying that we owe it to these people to get hate crimes legislation introduced? That if we don't they will have died in vain. That implies they were voluntary martyrs who died for the cause. They weren't. They were victims of horrible anti-gay violence. They were human beings. They're not tools for scoring political points. Come on, Lance, you know its intimidating to look that much death in the face and them oppose you. It makes me look like I don't care about their deaths, and I do! Please don't bludgeon us with that.

I hope I still have everyone's respect after that.

Eddie

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies: