I DO like hate crime laws. When a person assaults another because they are gay, it creates fear among all gay people in the community, not just the victim. This fear can also cause a chilling effect on speech and expression. That is harmful to society and that’s why it’s a separate crime than the original assault.
I was thinking that you tell him that at some point in the future, who knows when, a gay man will jump out and punch his lights out. Then, hire guys to follow him around suspiciously and act kinda jumpy in his vicinity. Never have to actually assault him, but hopefully he’ll live out his days on the edge of insanity from the not knowing when that assault is coming.
1 Like
Well the stars at night, are big and bright…clap…clap…clap…clap…deep in the heart…of Texas.
Sorry if I came across as really pissed off and aggressive. I was stuck in a mental loop of astonishment that he only had to pay $5000 bail for going out of his way to assault a pedestrian.
I understand that in the context of hate crimes, the intent and motivation is an important factor in whether Anthony Fera can be successfully convicted of a hate crime.
I just think in this case it’s pretty obvious that hate crime charges should be unnecessary to keep this scumbag locked up until he goes to court. To let a road-rage-aholic walk free until the time of his trial only serves to put more of the public at risk.
And seriously, road rage is so mindblowingly fucked up IMHO that there should be a separate class of charges applied for incidents involving strangers in vehicles. People so often let the vehicle be their mental armor against thinking, and that’s a set of attitudes and behaviors I can’t feel bad about punishing extra-hard. He should at the very least have his license suspended. He’s an executive in Austin. I’m sure there’s plenty of cabs and car services that will remove his psychotic rage from the controls of a multi-ton machine designed with the capability to nimbly crush human bodies with minimal skill and effort.
1 Like
The argument that pushed me from “tepid opposition” to “uneasy support” on hate crime laws was that they aren’t really about punishing the perpetrator for his or her thoughts per se, but for the additional crime of intimidating a vulnerable group of people beyond the immediate victim.
If someone beats me up because they don’t like me personally that’s a violent crime and the attacker should be punished for it. But if someone beats up a gay person while screaming “faggot!” that is not only a crime against the victim, but an act of intimidation against any other gay person who fears for their safety.
1 Like
These days there would need to be a new wrinkle discussed.
Because now the terrorism definitions might be applied to white people crimes of systemic intimidation.
So crime, hate crime & terrorism.
-
Crime for profit or passion that can’t be determined / are not to be considered to be aggravated by specific targeting based on race, gender, orientation, origin, creed, religion etc. = Crime.
-
Crime for profit or (usually) passion aggravated by the above. = Hate crime? Does it do more damage to a victim to know they were targeted and or permissibly (according to their assailant) abused for X reason? I think so. Could we get a better, less controversial name for it? Probably. It’s civil rights being violated within the context of a crime being committed isn’t it? I mean, it’s not going to be a hate crime if I punch Bob, another privileged white guy, because he cut me off, even if I hate him for it.
-
Crime for profit or passion with a premeditated, intended outcome of political influence, often associated but not limited to systemic acts of organized groups. = Terrorism. There’s your cross burning, hopefully, since people are waking up to the fact of another privilege, the fact of white terrorism.
I’m seeing this incident as “2”. I suppose it’d be different if his victim were not a homosexual and he was using such words because stupid. But his victim was homosexual, so the criminal was effectively justifying his assault, worsening his crime.
Why not a hate crime by a violent asshole with road rage?
Would he have treated a hetro dude walking down the street with his wife the same way? Probably not, given the fact that he doesn’t have a history of driving down everyone and hitting them.
1 Like
Until we know his record, we can’t say. He’s been arrested “several times” according to the voice…if they involved beating up straight people after minor conflicts the hate crime angle seems less important than the “repeated violent behavior” angle. But at this point, we just don’t know.
2 Likes
There are lots of good opinions offered by many people here. How about this, Can we just agree that he really is a sorry piece of shit who apparently represents a danger to other members of society?
3 Likes
Most asshole bigots (as opposed to principled bigots) would have no problem denying that burning shit was intimidation or a threat of violence.
I wish that it wasn’t necessary to consider intentions because it’s so messy and easy to come to incorrect conclusions, but unfortunately there’s no way of getting around it if you want to have some semblance of proportionality between punishment and the effect the actions have on society.
As long as the stats are kept right.
It’s funny, because the tax code is FULL of special incentives and disincentives for behavior. Somehow the penal code is off limits?
Great point as usual @Spocko
I think we disagree.
You’re of course free to individualize criminals and their actions all you like, but surely paying attention to the context in which they happen – in this case, a society that remains heterosexist – is a better way to work towards preventing future crimes and abuses of the same sort. He is a sorry piece of shit, but so is a culture that often condones and even encourages homophobic violence.
I believe one reason for establishment of hate crime laws is to ensure that the law is enforced. Too often law enforcement will not enforce assault laws because it is OK to hit or kill someone who is gay/black/Jewish/whatever. I’ve read cases where people arrested for assaulting someone who is gay thought that the law allowed it, that the law didn’t apply to members of certain groups. So the late law is saying explicating “no, this behavior isn’t OK.” Some people need to be told very clearly that the law protects everyone, not just members of their group.
The law traditionally takes into account the motive of the accused. In court the prosecutor needs to argue motive. This differentiates 1st degree murder from 2nd degree to manslaughter. I’m not a lawyer but when I served on 2 federal juries motive was a key factor in determining if the accused was guilty.
Last, it does not lead to a slippery slop of thought crimes. Without actions there are no crimes. I don’t see the link to freedom of speech. I can see the link in a theoretical way. I see it more as a way to ensure that people don’t get away with crimes because their hateful motivation is found to make their actions legitimate.
1 Like
The already-existing assault laws explicitly say “no, this behaviour isn’t OK”. Just because the bigot in question doesn’t know that, doesn’t mean we need to create new laws in order to get the old laws enforced.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
