Replies

It has nothing to do with whether the person is 'special' or not... it's a simple observation that a person who is more likely to be the target of a crime is in more need of preventitive protection.

And as far as someone's mindset... that is something that is of prime importance in any crime; if that wasn't the case, then everyone would be tried (and punished) the same, regardless of mental illness, age (ie "who cares if the 8 year old didn't know what was right or wrong), and circumstances such as accidents, temporary loss of judgement, or cold calculated victimization.

Never is the question "is a homosexual person more valuable than a heterosexual person" asked. It's "is this particular group of people more susceptible to being a victim than this group of people." Given that being homosexual is generally less than popular, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're more likely to be a target of abuse than a heterosexual person who is (other than sexuality) exactly the same.

Yes, the victim is a victim regardless of motive... but without motive, we're judging based on the archaic thought that everyone is evil.

Example: two white men (of similar social backgrounds) cause two deaths in traffic accidents. Man 'A' accidentally runs a red light, and crashes into another call, killing another white man. In another situation, man 'B' purposefully runs a red light, crashing into another car, and kills a black woman because he saw her and willfully crashed into her. Both men caused an accident, through fault of their own... both killed another person. Any just and reasonable person would lament man A's situation; he did not intend for anything to happen, and would more than likely feel horrendous at his actions. And man B, who intended to cause harm to his victim, would feel no remorse for his actions, regardless of their ramifications.

In this example, why should the two men be tried and punished in the same way? They should not; one was an accident, and the other was a hate crime. This is precisely why our legal system recognizes a 'hate crime' as something altogether different than something non-malicious.

Hate-crimes are just to satisfy the vocal homosexuals. If I pop someone in the head with a baseball bat, what do you think my intentions are? Now if it was an accident, then that is different. We already have laws - more than enough laws - to charge people for all sorts of crimes. Why do you insist that homosexuals deserve more protection than say, heterosexuals? I can almost understand special protection for say, race, but not choice. If I choose to be a child molester and a neighbor decides to threaten me because I'm a child molester, do I get special protection?

"Example: two white men (of similar social backgrounds) cause two deaths in traffic accidents. Man 'A' accidentally runs a red light, and crashes into another call, killing another white man. In another situation, man 'B' purposefully runs a red light, crashing into another car, and kills a black woman because he saw her and willfully crashed into her. Both men caused an accident, through fault of their own... both killed another person. Any just and reasonable person would lament man A's situation; he did not intend for anything to happen, and would more than likely feel horrendous at his actions. And man B, who intended to cause harm to his victim, would feel no remorse for his actions, regardless of their ramifications."

Your example is logically invalid. You're presupposing the hyperthetical. What if man (A) and man (B) roles were reversed? The problem with hate-crime legislation is NOT in just and fair punishment, it is in subjective interpretation. How do you prove intent in the case oif man (B), if he was once in the KKK in his college days but now as a 50 year old contributing member of society happens to run-down and kill the black lady? His "past" will spawn motive, even though his intent was not to kill and was completely an accident. Under this legislation he would likely be convicted of a hate-crime, and suffer a more harsher sentence. The problem with subjective interpretation in law is that it shifts the burden of proof on the defendant, to prove innocence. How does one prove that they no longer ascribe to the views of the KKK??

D

Your comment:

"Given that being homosexual is generally less than popular, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're more likely to be a target of abuse than a heterosexual person who is (other than sexuality) exactly the same."

Is mere personal, subjective supposition. Please cite some figures to support your opinion. Keep in mind that many so-called "hate crimes" against homosexuals have in fact turned out to be committed by the supposed victims themselves to elicit support for their cause.

For instance, the Matthew Shepard murder which was promoted as a "gay bashing" hate crime turned out to be a sordid, meth fueled robbery gone bad and had nothing to do with his homosexuality at all.