Homophobic Murders ...

[DC_DEEP]

The one thing missing from your equation is that they are NOT assigning greater "value" to the life of D. They are putting more weight on the motive. Person B was killed because of what he possessed, greed has been a motivating factor for crime since mankind has existed....The difference comes from the motive and circumstances...

Thanks, ETA, I have tried repeatedly to make that point in this thread, and also the point that our laws ALREADY assign different weight to similar crimes with different apparent motives... with the fact remaining that those different apparent motives must be clearly spelled out in the legislation.

Dong20, if this were not the case, you would never have heard the difference between the legal terms "assault" and "aggravated assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". All three are assault - the differences lie in method and motive. This is not a new idea, common law has recognized motive as a measure of "egregiousness" for centuries.

 

[dong20]

Thanks, ETA, I have tried repeatedly to make that point in this thread, and also the point that our laws ALREADY assign different weight to similar crimes with different apparent motives... with the fact remaining that those different apparent motives must be clearly spelled out in the legislation.

Dong20, if this were not the case, you would never have heard the difference between the legal terms "assault" and "aggravated assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". All three are assault - the differences lie in method and motive. This is not a new idea, common law has recognized motive as a measure of "egregiousness" for centuries.

DC I know you have said so repeatedly, I heard and understood your view and I'm not ignoring it or the situation legally. I just don't entirely concur with either, I believe I have that right.

As for degrees of assault I agree of course, but I was talking about murder which is by definition an absolute, while one can be injured or assaulted by degree but there is only one degree of death, total. So, to me it's a largely irrelevant comparison.

I was speaking of the possible real emotional response of relatives. This is an abstract discussion so of course it is easier to distance oneself from the grief they must feel. If you were a family member of person D can you say hand on heart you would not even in some way feel that there was an inbalance in sentencing and thus the value of the crime? because I cannot. No one knows how they will feel in any given situation until it is forced upon them. This is an element of crime and its consequences that is seldom addressed.

I agree that there are different degrees of 'motivation' in any crime. But in any true, just society any life is considered equally valid and precious. By assigning different degrees of punishment for the motivation behind taking that life I maintain you are to some degree placing differing values upon it, regardless of what social phenomena you are intending to address as the root cause.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...As for degrees of assault I agree of course, but I was talking about murder which is by definition an absolute, while one can be injured or assaulted by degree but there is only one degree of death, total. So, to me it's a largely irrelevant comparison...

So you see no legal difference between pre-meditated murder, negligent homicide, and involuntary manslaughter? The end result is that the person is dead.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Thanks, ETA, I have tried repeatedly to make that point in this thread, and also the point that our laws ALREADY assign different weight to similar crimes with different apparent motives... with the fact remaining that those different apparent motives must be clearly spelled out in the legislation.

Dong20, if this were not the case, you would never have heard the difference between the legal terms "assault" and "aggravated assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". All three are assault - the differences lie in method and motive. This is not a new idea, common law has recognized motive as a measure of "egregiousness" for centuries.

Motive is irrelevant for proving homicide, battery, and assault crimes. Motive IS relevant, and is necessary element, to prove hate crimes.

 

[madame_zora]

Motive is irrelevant for proving homicide, battery, and assault crimes. Motive IS relevant, and is necessary element, to prove hate crimes.

Um, no one's talking about proving the crime, we're talking about sentencing.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Um, no one's talking about proving the crime, we're talking about sentencing.

Read DC's post again.

 

[findfirefox]

Read DC's post again.

I did and I think Madame_Z is right.

(Like the new pic Madame)

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, I get it already that once someone is dead, they're dead. That doesn't in any way address the issue of what should be done about the perpetrator?

Motive is important because it is in EVERY other crime. A battered wife may kill her abusive husband, and even if it's not directly in self defense at the moment, she'll likely get a lesser sentence if there is a documented history of abuse. His violence against her is considered a MITIGATING factor. In "crimes of passion" which refers to crimes in which the parties know each other and have some involvement, there ARE sometimes mitigating factors.

Hate crimes are being separated from the pack NOT because some groups are deemed more precious than others- that's just stupid. It is because of a complete and total lack of mitigating factors. Slick attourneys have been using the absurd defense that being afraid of gay people or uneasy around them is a legitimate mitigating factor in killing them. That level of absurdity can only be dealt with directly, obviously.

Now, if you think it's okay to kill homos for being homos, just come right out and say so. Don't be a fucktard and pretend you don't understand what's being said.

 

[madame_zora]

Read DC's post again.

Not only have I read DC's posts, I know him well and talk to him outside of here. Unless you're psychic, I don't see how you could read more into his words than what is there.

I'll repeat- "proving" the crime is not the point, we already know if someone is dead. WHY someone commits a murder is ALWAYS relevant in classifying what degree of murder it is considered, and a hate crime is just a classification.

 

[dong20]

So you see no legal difference between pre-meditated murder, negligent homicide, and involuntary manslaughter? The end result is that the person is dead.

DC when did I say I saw no legal difference? and when did I refer to manslaughter? Yes I understand the difference; in real terms causing death is not intentional. Why not add 'ordinary' manslaughter and corporate manslaughter etc into the equation but that's just playing with words and you can do better. I am talking about murder as per the thread title.

I understand clearly the legal difference between premeditated murder and non premeditated murder, my understanding of the legal definitions was never the problem as I think you know, although such definitions do not currently apply here in the UK. My point was that when you Murder somone you do so deliberately so what real difference does it make if the period of pre-meditation is weeks or seconds? ask that question not in a legal context but in a moral and human one, that's all I am doing.

How would you feel if for example someone murdered someone close to you and they received 25 years with possibility of parole and not life without parole simply because they didn't think about it 'long enough' before they did so? step outside the legal arena into the realm of human emotion for a moment before you answer.

I have NO problem understanding the legal process in this context, I just have a problem accepting it. As I keep saying I have no problem with Hate Crimes legislation on the grounds of society expressing moral indignation, I find such crime abhorrent.

I do have a problem with the concept in terms of efficacy and it being the start of a slippery slope to making a definiton of 'hate' subject to the whim of the current political establishment. If you give a murderer a life sentence, what do you do, give a hate murder two life sentences? Do you execute them twice? Murder is considered the worst sin in the eyes of society yes? well, there are no degrees to worst; like death it is an absolute.

Lets say in 25 years, the same number of murders occur but 70% of them are now classified 'hate' crimes, well that's good, society has taken a stand and stated it will not tolerate such things, well I would argue that it already doesn't tolerate them and in real terms what will have changed other than statistics?

Society needs to resolve the problem at source i.e. itself. I accept that hate crimes legislation may be an inevitable first step but it risks being merely a convenient label for the crimes of a section of society we already know about and despise, it labels their actions but it doesn't solve anything.

I really believe I'm not very far from you here DC....:smile:

EDIT: To MZ....I know I am not including extenuating or mitigating circumstances into my thinking as they are discretionary though of course relevant, but on a case by case basis which practically I can't take account of here.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Not only have I read DC's posts, I know him well and talk to him outside of here. Unless you're psychic, I don't see how you could read more into his words than what is there.

I'll repeat- "proving" the crime is not the point, we already know if someone is dead. WHY someone commits a murder is ALWAYS relevant in classifying what degree of murder it is considered, and a hate crime is just a classification.

Incorrect. Why someone committed a crime is rarely legally relevant to determine what type of homicide crime, a person will be charged, tried, and perhaps convicted of. As I said earlier, it is ONLY legally relevant when it is a hate crime.

 

[ETA123]

Incorrect. Why someone committed a crime is rarely legally relevant to determine what type of homicide crime, a person will be charged, tried, and perhaps convicted of. As I said earlier, it is ONLY legally relevant when it is a hate crime.

Actually, it's quite relevant. Motive is often the deciding factor in what the actual charge will be. Motive can mean the difference between a 1st and 2nd degree murder charge. It can also mean the difference between being charged only with 1st degree murder, or being charged with other crimes in conjunction therewith. For instance, if you murder someone with the motive of influencing a change in governmental policies, you are subject to charges under various terrorism statutes.

Motive has a great deal to with many crimes, and the charges that arise from them.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Actually, it's quite relevant. Motive is often the deciding factor in what the actual charge will be. Motive can mean the difference between a 1st and 2nd degree murder charge. It can also mean the difference between being charged only with 1st degree murder, or being charged with other crimes in conjunction therewith. For instance, if you murder someone with the motive of influencing a change in governmental policies, you are subject to charges under various terrorism statutes.

Motive has a great deal to with many crimes, and the charges that arise from them.

Motive will NEVER be at issue when determining between first and second degree murder. The difference is state of mind, NOT motive. The difference between first degree murder and a hate crime involving a homicide will never be state of mind. It will be identical in both cases. The difference in that case is motive.

 

[ETA123]

Motive will NEVER be at issue when determining between first and second degree murder. The difference is state of mind, NOT motive. The difference between first degree murder and a hate crime involving a homicide will never be state of mind. It will be identical in both cases. The difference in that case is motive.

Not true. When was the last time you heard "gay panic" used as a defense to a homicide committed in the course of a robbery? Seems quite obvious to me that the defense is, in fact, mindset.

I notice that you provide no defense to my point that your argument that motive is only a factor in "hate crimes" is entirely false.

As to your statement that state of mind is the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, this is not necessarily the case. Motive can provide mitigating circumstances, and has done so in the past. Motive can prove intent, intent can be the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder. At this point, motive can and does play a role in determining the charge.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Motive is irrelevant for proving homicide, battery, and assault crimes. Motive IS relevant, and is necessary element, to prove hate crimes.

Nowhere in my post that you quoted did I mention proving guilt. I mentioned motive as being defined in statute, which would not affect proof, but rather show severity to assist in sentencing guidelines.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Dong20, if this were not the case, you would never have heard the difference between the legal terms "assault" and "aggravated assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". All three are assault - the differences lie in method and motive.

This is what I was referring to.

BTW please don't infer that I oppose hate crimes legislation. I just don't think you can rebut the "merely punishing motive rather than action" opposing argument by saying that the common law already differentiates between crimes based on motive as you did here with assault. The differences between these types of assault are not based on motive.

Motive can be relevant at sentencing. But what does sentencing have to do with the differences between these crimes? Granted they have different sentences, but they are based on states of mind and method rather than motive.

The crux of what I am trying to point out is that the law upgrades or reduces the charge against a defendant on states of mind, not motive. This is not true of hate crimes. With a hate crime, motive is relevant to prove the case, but is much less relevant at sentencing. That is what makes it separate and distinct and why many folks have a problem with it. It certainly is a departure from the common law. I personally feel that the "wrongs" being addressed with hate crimes legislation deserves a departure from established law.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...The crux of what I am trying to point out is that the law upgrades or reduces the charge against a defendant on states of mind, not motive. This is not true of hate crimes. With a hate crime, motive is relevant to prove the case, but is much less relevant at sentencing. That is what makes it separate and distinct and why many folks have a problem with it. It certainly is a departure from the common law. I personally feel that the "wrongs" being addressed with hate crimes legislation deserves a departure from established law.

Ah, I understand now what you were addressing. The thread seems to have two undercurrents - and we have been arguing apples and kumquats. <g> you DO need to use a little more clarity in your posts, I will try to do the same.

 

[Nelly Gay]

Yes, I get it already that once someone is dead, they're dead. That doesn't in any way address the issue of what should be done about the perpetrator?

Motive is important because it is in EVERY other crime. A battered wife may kill her abusive husband, and even if it's not directly in self defense at the moment, she'll likely get a lesser sentence if there is a documented history of abuse. His violence against her is considered a MITIGATING factor. In "crimes of passion" which refers to crimes in which the parties know each other and have some involvement, there ARE sometimes mitigating factors.

Hate crimes are being separated from the pack NOT because some groups are deemed more precious than others- that's just stupid. It is because of a complete and total lack of mitigating factors. Slick attourneys have been using the absurd defense that being afraid of gay people or uneasy around them is a legitimate mitigating factor in killing them. That level of absurdity can only be dealt with directly, obviously.

Now, if you think it's okay to kill homos for being homos, just come right out and say so. Don't be a fucktard and pretend you don't understand what's being said.

Sadly, a lot of gay men espouse their "straight-acting" and/or "straight-looking" traits as if that is a merit.
They seem to feel flamboyant screamers and drag queens attract the wrong sort of attention and are in some way, inheritly deserve being assaulted and/or murdered ?
A great many older gay men are also being murdered possibly by "trade" which remains largely unsolved.
Their lives being highly closeted !

 

[dong20]

Sadly, a lot of gay men espouse their "straight-acting" and/or "straight-looking" traits as if that is a merit.

Some maybe, but I suspect for many it's more simple; they, like most people of any sexuality feel no need to shove their sexuality in others faces; it's nobodys business but their own.

They seem to feel flamboyant screamers and drag queens attract the wrong sort of attention and are in some way, inheritly deserve being assaulted and/or murdered ?

Well any behaviour or style of dress taken to an extreme is going to attract attention; some of which will be unwelcome and some hostile. The same argument has been used repeatedly in rape cases....she dressed and acted provocatively..therefore... 'she was asking for it'. That presumtion is as invalid in that scenario as it is in this but it's still made.

 

[Nelly Gay]

Some maybe, but I suspect for many it's more simple; they, like most people of any sexuality feel no need to shove their sexuality in others faces; it's nobodys business but their own.



Well any behaviour or style of dress taken to an extreme is going to attract attention; some of which will be unwelcome and some hostile. The same argument has been used repeatedly in rape cases....she dressed and acted provocatively..therefore... 'she was asking for it'. That presumtion is as invalid in that scenario as it is in this but it's still made.

Indeed, but we all owe a debt of gratitude to those Drag Queens of Stonewall and the likes of Quentin Crisp who had the guts to stand up and be counted all those years ago.
How many politicians have come out of the closet only when it suits them (or not at all).
Michael Portillo or Mark Oaten, anybody ?