Gay Bar Attack

[B_Stronzo]

GBO?

By 'privileges' I mean equal rights since, for me, they would be.


I suspect, truth be told, we're splitting hairs and entirely bogged down in semantics just now. My friend, I live in the city where this happened. I've watched this atrocity receive local but not national coverage. There's an inequity to the way this thing's being addressed when the Governor of the fucking Commonwealth of Masschusetts guards his security for the Republican bid for the White House so vehemently that he dare not speak out for fear of offending the so-called "religious right".

Had this been an attack on Hispanics or Blacks or any other American minority all hell would have broken loose. But it's not. It's simply fags. That's my take, that's how I see it cuz that's how I live it. I realize you're trying to be broad-minded in your view of equal application of the laws of this land but for me (as a homosexual man) it's a pretty tough notion for me to "buy" just now since one of those injured by the "waste of DNA" (tip of the hat to Sorcerer) was a personal friend of my boyfriend's and mine. He has a gash across his eye and face that will (short of cosmetic surgery) never go away.

The other two victims are worse. One is still critical. There's a dead cop in rural Arkansas and the fucktard killed the girl he'd picked up in West Virginia who was riding with him.

So, you tell me GBO - what will deter these miscreants if not tougher Hate Legislation?? I'll willingly hear you out.

Honestly I will.

 

[GottaBigOne]

I think the main reason why we are in disagreement is because you see a distinction between a crime where money (or property) is the value sought and a crime where destruction is the value sought. My contention is that "hate" and destruction is always the motivation for every crime, whether or not someone steals something physical or not. When a mugger decides to mug someone, they make a choice to live as an arbiter of the anti-life. He wishes to negate his nature as a being who has to produce his own means of survival and instead decides to live as a parasite. He wishes to deprive another man of his means of survival, his means of living. The mugger hates life because he chooses not to live as a man should; by his own labor. The mugger does not want to live, only to destroy that which lives, because he knows he is not fit for existence, he is not fit for the thing he most despises, the thing he most fears; living.

 

[headbang8]

Headbang: I said "murder is murder" not "killing is murder" get the distinction?
Punishment as a deterrant simply does not make any sense. Criminals do not think they will get caught, they think they will get away with it, so any punishment you devise for them is not going to have an affect on them, because they don't belive they will ever be punished.

Hey, GBO...of course I get the distinction! I dropped out of one of the English-speaking world's most respected and authoritative law schools! So think twice what you say, because I'm fond of a vexatious defamation suit. (Just joking)

And as a reasonable fellow who might be talking over the water cooler or sharing a drink with you in a bar (BTW if you're free for one tonight, name the bar), I totally agree. Not only do criminals think they're smarter than the police, but many killings are crimes of passion. The murderer doesn't even CARE if he's caught--the wife who kills her husband, the miffed employee who goes postal. There's NO deterrent to someone who, say, after a killing rampage, turns the gun on himself. He's already delivered himself the maximum sentence, more than most courts are capable of.

But as a onetime wannabe legal professional, if we don't believe jail is a deterrent, then why bother?

Punishment? It's expensive and ugly, and it doesn't stop the next crime by the perpetrator--statistics show few recidivist killers, for example. No, wearing my legal wig (which, of course, cuts off circulation to the brain, but I need all the help with hair I can get nowadays) I have to believe deterrents work.

Besides, following your argument to its logical conclusion, why should there be different sentences for different crimes at all? It makes more sense to lock up a petty thief for life (we know that they have a high rate of recidivism) and leave the murderer go (because unless they are a bona fide serial killer, they are unlikely to kill again.)

For me, those arguments are irrelevant to my support for hate crimes legislation. It's a sign tp all those law-abiding kids seeking to understand the world they live in that society has taken a moral stand on the issue, and that respect for a person's sexual orientation is important and valued.

HB8

 

[GottaBigOne]

By 'privileges' I mean equal rights since, for me, they would be.

Ok, what do you mean by "rights"? Do you think it is your right to have the media cover your story as equally as it would another crime? What do you think are people's rights? And if you can, can you justify them?

So, you tell me GBO - what will deter these miscreants if not tougher Hate Legislation?? I'll willing to hear you out.

Better parenting, better schooling, more rationality. Like I said, the key is not supression. You have to make people understand why something is wrong for them to change their beliefs, if you just force them to hide it, they will still hold them. The question should be: How do we deter people from committing crimes period. (well, question mark) The only way to deter crime is to let people know that living irrationally will not get them anywhere, and it is their best interest to act rationally.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Gottabigone-

I read and understood every word you wrote.

I see your view as esoteric and idealistic. However I don't find it dreadfully practical in today's political climate when it comes to application.

Peace out.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Headbang:

The point of jail should be the removal of an offender from society as a punishment and a deterrant to them. A deterrant for them to do it again. But mostly it should be to remove them from society and for punishment.

About the whole punsihing every crime equally: I am not advocating throwing a petty thief in jail for life. I believe the scales of justice should be well, just, that is, equal. If you murder someone, you have lost the right to not be murdered yourself. If you steal from someone, you should have a certain number of years stolen from you. Eye for an eye.... bla blah blah.

 

[GottaBigOne]

You don't find it practical, because it doesn't get you what you want. You don't want equality, you want to get back at an unjust society. Fine, thats your prerogative.

Peace Out.

 

[B_Stronzo]

You don't find it practical, because it doesn't get you what you want. You don't want equality, you want to get back at an unjust society. Fine, thats your prerogative.

Peace Out.

Yikes....

Boy that's sure not what I got from headbang8's posting. Reality is, it would appear, perception.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

Surely the "deterrant" value of criminal punishment goes beyond merely that of the offender themselves.

Several states in the US still practise Capital Punishment - surely it would be ludicrous to suggest that that only serves to deter someone who had already commotted the crime.

I always understood the "deterrant" in question to be that against POTENTIAL perpetrators. i.e. "don't do it or this will happen to you."

Personally I think that someone who has nothing to gain from an act of violence or murder other than pleasure is more in the wrong than someone who has an ulterior motive. The "criminal for profit" is not ostracizing himself from society, he is trying to live within society but outside of it's rule set. The Hate Criminal is attacking the very society he inhabits purely for the sake of it, and my hope to destabilize it. Hate Crimes are often performed by those who believe themselves to be martyrs to a cause. In my opinion we need to differentiate and prove that their cause neither exists, nor can than their delusions be tolerated in a civilized context.

 

[Dr Rock]

All crime is irrational.

oh c'mon, that's a cat turd and you know it. just because something is illegal doesn't make it irrational, immoral or a "bad idea." you know better than to take the fucking law as a logical compass.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

Good point Dr Rock. Perhaps we should start a thread/poll entitled "who's never committed a crime of any sort?"

<quickly hides a non-returned library book>

 

[headbang8]

The point of jail should be the removal of an offender from society as a punishment and a deterrant to them. A deterrant for them to do it again. But mostly it should be to remove them from society and for punishment.

But it's amongst offenders that the value of the deterrent is most unreliable. Gotta call you on that one.

Eye for an eye.... bla blah blah.

Good old fashioned malicious retribution? Now THAT I buy. Done creatively and with maximum humiliation.

Just make sure that the victim is allowed to have his thumb on the scales of justice. I would hate for a handbag-snatcher who netted $100 from a little old lady to get off by returning the $100 and handing over his backpack. Wholly reasonable retribution is most unsatisfying.

And I'm with Doc Rock. Most of the time, crime is a terribly rational solution to your problems. It's just not a moral one, for reasons we don't need to prove logically.

Better education, less poverty, all that...at least as effective as deterrents. Maybe we should try some.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

GBO

As to Stronzo's "practical" comment. I've been verbally abused in the work place for having admitted to attending Gay Bars with friends. I think they're often alot more fun than many straight bars, and don't have the "pick-up" pressure for a straight guy there. However, my colleagues still thought it sufficient cause to use it as verbal ammunition, and were narrow minded enough to think that "Queer" was still valid as a term of abuse.

That sort of thing gives credence to Stronzo's point that whilst we many of us aspire to a Utopia of tolerance and understanding, in practical terms, many individuals still regard gay men as "lesser" than themselves, many of them in the religious right.

p.s. forgive me the odd typo tonight, it's late and I should soon be off to bed.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

We can all read the collective condemnations of the attacks from Christian groups and their media:

Agape Press
http://www.agapepress.org/

American Values
http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/

Christian Broadcasting Network
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/

Christian Coalition
http://www.cc.org/blog/

Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/media.asp

Family Research Institute
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

Public Advocate of the United States
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/

Renew America
http://www.renewamerica.us/

Tradtional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/catid.php?catid=10

I found not a single denouncement of the killings in any of these web sites. I did, however, find plenty of advice about seizing and holding political power.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Dr. Rock. I said all CRIME is irrational, and by crime I mean "violation of another's rights" not "anything the lawbooks say is wrong". I hope that clears that up.

Capital punishment is not a deterrant as I have already shown, those that would commit crime do not have the future in mind. Criminals are necessarily short term goal oriented. It may act as a dterrant to someone who has experienced jail, but to a very slight degree. Capital Punishments purpose is not to deter others, or even "good old fashioned malice" either. It is about removing from society someone who no longer has a right to live. Someone who steals 100 dollars from an old lady has done more damge to her than just a hundred dollars. therefore his punishment must be greater than 100 dollars in order to be just. He mst be shown that there is a punishment for committing crimes.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, I'm in the "eye for an eye" camp here, although I am aware of that concept's immorality.

GBO, I find your logic as fine as ever, but I think you give too much credit to human beings as a whole. Yes, IF we took education more seriously, and iF we gave a damn about parenting our children and IF there were enough people who cared about the rights of others, THEN there should be no distiction in hate crimes, but none of these things are true, so what then do we do about the world of reality in which we currently reside?

Because there does IN REALITY exist a thing called the "gay panic defense" which means that the perp can claim he was scared out of his wits because the guy was gay and THAT'S why he killed the poor sot, there is an obvious need for a legal reaction to this absurdity. Not only are gays not equal under the law, in reality, they are not equal in society either. Yes, I wish these things were not true, but wishing won't make them go away.

No, we can't legislate morality, but we can legislate- law. There was a time when killing a black man wasn't even a crime, other than depriving his owner of property. LAWS helped to correct this imbalance, and in fact we are still not completely over it, but I daresay there's a black man alive who would rather have the laws and the social climate of 100 years ago. Progress is very, very slow, and people are even slower than that. If we don't start somewhere, when can never GET anywhere.

People aren't going to wake up one day and start seeing homosexuals as decent human beings if it is not in their nature to observe the obvious already, and the majority do not. Therefore I am strongly on the side of taking what remedy we can through the law to send a clear message to those who think they can skate on these things (because our current society allows them to believe it). Punish the shit out of them, publicise it (like my buddy Gandhi liked to do) and make it clear to all that killing a person based on their sexual preference will get you the death penalty. Air a few executions for persons convicted of hate crimes and have the media show them as shameful and idiotic and YES, it will have an impact on how society views these crimes.

I don't disagree with your logic, just your positive view of humanity. Sadly, most people DO need to be told how to think, and punished when they think wrong.

 

[B_Stronzo]

We can all read the collective condemnations of the attacks from Christian groups and their media:


I found not a single denouncement of the killings in any of these web sites. I did, however, find plenty of advice about seizing and holding political power.

Yes. Telling absent is denouncement. And glaring apparent the 'holding of politcal power'. Thanks for the heads up SpeedoGuy.

 

[B_Stronzo]

People aren't going to wake up one day and start seeing homosexuals as decent human beings if it is not in their nature to observe the obvious already, and the majority do not.

That's very astute and at the same time so glaring sad. I'd never quite conceived of it in just that way madame_zora. Thanks for such concise articulation. It's given me due comfort in the wake of recent events.

I don't disagree with your logic, just your positive view of humanity. Sadly, most people DO need to be told how to think, and punished when they think wrong.

His logic is sound. Now if only logic prevailed.

 

[madame_zora]

That's very astute and at the same time so glaring sad. I'd never quite conceived of it in just that way madame_zora. Thanks for such concise articulation. It's given me due comfort in the wake of recent events.


His logic is sound. Now if only logic prevailed.

Ha, you get used to it, I rarely find fault with him on that level.

Stronzo, I hope you and your partner are able to find your way through this together and keep fighting the good fight. While it may seem small now, I believe there is a growing awareness that this issue needs to be addressed. It does little to comfort the ones who must live through it NOW, but the punches and insults you take now will help ease the suffering of those in the future. I wish humanity were not so ugly, for all our sakes.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Stronzo, I hope you and your partner are able to find your way through this together and keep fighting the good fight. While it may seem small now, I believe there is a growing awareness that this issue needs to be addressed. It does little to comfort the ones who must live through it NOW, but the punches and insults you take now will help ease the suffering of those in the future. I wish humanity were not so ugly, for all our sakes.

Ironically (and apropos to this discussion) we've just watched "Stonewall" a re-enactment of the events of 1969 in NYC when things were so very different. Perspective is key. I had no clue how far we've come.

However in the broad spectrum they're baby steps given it's been 37 years.

Thanks for the kind words madame_zora. They've not gone unnoticed.