sighs thats the 21st Murder (?!) of a transperson this year for the US i think and the media keeps DEADNAMING the victims.
Thats insult to injury to the victims. I mean its good that this is reported at all but as transperson myself i rather have not my old name publicly proclaimed everywhere. Secondly having a trans* victim Deadnamed on the media sends the message that we never truly were our gender, that the populace should see us as misguided and at fault for our dead community members.
It seems that crime epithets offend you?
You’re equivocating. “Hate crime” and “thought crime” are not analogous. In “thought crime,” the thought itself would be treated as a criminal act. In “hate crime,” hateful thought itself is not treated as a criminal act but rather is considered as a motivation for the criminal act. “Thought crime” could be more aptly termed “criminal thought,” whereas “hate crime” could be more aptly termed “hate-motivated crime” (or “hate-promoting crime”).
You are mischaracterizing “hate crime” as “criminalized hatred,” which simply isn’t the case. Your argument is predicated on a false equivalency between “thought” and “motive,” which is definitely fallacious and potentially disingenuous.
One wonders if your motive here isn’t to obfuscate. But then, I wouldn’t want to unfairly impugn your words by considering the motivation behind them. 
I don’t think that’s quite the problem (though all Americans do have funny accents from my perspective). It’s the willingness to implicate a class of people in a singularly egregious crime. Gouging out eyes? That sounds like something …s would do. Try swapping in “Jews” or “Mexicans” and you can see it more clearly.
This isn’t to deny your point that the crime in question isn’t orders of magnitude more evil - so maybe we’re at furious agreement. But I think we need to be very careful if we want to avoid finding ourselves on the same spectrum.
Solzhenitsyn is right: “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”
I swear I should sell my statement-rewriting services to RW people.
They should have said, “Until we have a suspect and motive, we wouldn’t want to assume this was a hate crime based solely on the gender of the victim.”
What on earth are you even talking about with this paragraph? What class of people were implicated in this crime? And how does that relate to racist assumptions based on the details of a crime?
I’m hoping I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are indicting the people here who are expressing outrage that this murder isn’t being treated as a hate crime. That would be a bad sentiment.
loathing and self-loathing are never disconnected. I know that.
Texans, I think. Except not really.
No, I’m suggesting that it might be possible to be guilty of demonising people while expressing outrage for hate crimes.
Actually that’s a fair challenge. I made it sound like Texans were being touted as likely perpetrators – whereas the indictment was of Texan prejudices toward the victim and perpetrators.
As someone who is an (retired) attorney, fully in support of “hate crime” as an enhancement to a charge and understand the role of a DA, I agree with the DA’s stance here.
These pieces of garbage are charged with first-degree murder and face the death penalty. There is no higher punishment in Texas than the death penalty.
Proving a hate crime looks to the intent and mindset of the defendant (e.g., “motive”). This is very difficult to do, or in the least, complicates the job of the DA for getting a successful conviction.
As the CNN analyst helpfully points out:
“First-degree murder is punishable by death,” said CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. “The hate crime law operates to ‘enhance’ punishments regarding certain crimes – upon a showing of hateful motivation.”
Since a first-degree murder charge is punishable by either death or life imprisonment, Jackson said, a hate crime charge cannot apply to a murder.
Additionally, it could complicate the job of prosecutors trying to convict defendants.
“A prosecutor generally does not have to prove motive,” he said. “In hate crimes, you must. Therefore, they make the job harder of a prosecutor.”
Jackson said of the prosecutor’s decision, “It’s the right call – and only call, under the law.”
So, firstly, if you want the DA to say it’s a hate crime, you’re asking for the DA to engage in something of political activity, which isn’t their job. Moreover, it’s irrelevant to the punishment since there is nothing worse than death in Texas. If the DA proved it was a hate crime, the punishment would be the same.
Most importantly, proving motive makes the DA’s job vastly more difficult. If the DA did prosecute as a hate crime, you’d get the temporary validation that, obviously, it was a hate crime, but risk that the defendants were found not guilty. This is both nonsensical from the DA’s POV, and leads to an increased risk that the defendants are found to be not guilty because motive was not proven.
People can be and are charged with multiple crimes. What prevents a hate crime charge and a first degree murder charge?
For that failure, I’m truly sorry. The trans community deserves better.
Not a minority that might be murdered for just existing, though.
Can you not.
This is very much a matter of questions with third, fourth, and fifth sides, and peoples violence intolerance to things that don’t fit neatly in one of two boxes so they can have their nuance-free way-too-simplified both sides. In my opinion.
Probably because “hate crime” is an enhancement to an existing charge, not a charge in of itself. @Nathan_B seems to make some good, well reasoned points about why a hate crime charge may not be pursued. It’s a nice departure from the other, “what’s the deal with hate crimes anyway?” bad faith arguments from some other certain posters.
Still arguable, though.
Reasons to pursue the hate crime enhancement:
Although death is the maximum penalty for the murder, American courts have a long and well established history of giving disproportionately light sentences to killers of minority victims.
There is value in the official judicial recognition of hate crime for what it is. It makes a public statement of societal condemnation.
Prosecuting an obvious hate crime is not “political activity” that “isn’t their job”.
Oh, for sure. It’s just nice to see reasoned debate on the merits of the charges versus some sort of pseudo-philosophical debate the crime itself (which was a pretty ludicrous argument).
I had thought of that, but since I don’t know the law I certainly wasn’t certain.
I have heard of attempts to convict someone of murder and having the court knock the charge down to manslaughter. If I’m right about this, I wonder why something similar is impossible in this situation.
