Truthiness has a martyr

There is even a contradiction within her article, as she admits the "elaborate hoax" of the Tawana Bradley situation, but in this case, he is "gone." No one disputes he died. How he died is in question. If he wasn't a victim of gaybashing, he can't be a posterperson for hate crimes legislation. What's so confusing about that?

Gay man slain, victim of hate! Pass legislation now protecting gays and lesbians! Oh, he died from a degenerative disease and not from gay-bashing? Hmmmmm. Okay, it doesn't matter how he died, let's still use the momentum to pass hate crime laws because the potential exists... _____________________________________ America attacked, Iraq has WMD's. Go to war now! Oh, Iraq doesn't have WMD's? Oh sh*t. Okay, it doesn't matter if they have WMD's, let's use the momentum to build a democracy! _____________________________________ A bit of a stretch, I know.

In Islam, this clear demarcation of first- and second-class citizenship is called dhimmitude. I wonder what the gay-supremacist version is called. Someone needs to create a corrolary to Godwin's Law which states once the offending party has been compared to Islamists, the conversation is effectively over. Nuff said.

The idea behind hate crime legislation is to prevent lynchings, the same way we have special legislation design to prevent cop killings. If we are going to get rid of special crime status, we should get rid of all of them. That said, cases shouldn't be made up if to make pass legislation. If there is enough gay bashing to warrant protection, so be it. But if there isn't, what is the point? It seems that Desiree Cooper doesn't want to admit a mistake.

I just re-read the Cooper column, and I see nothing unreasonable about what she wrote. I *did* however, see a lot of unreasonable comments on the page just beneath her column. What she is saying is:
1) At the time everyone thought a crime had occurred, people were morally outraged at the thought of a 72 year old man being bludgeoned because of his orientation. 2) As a result of the moral outrage at the thought of a 72 year old man being bludgeoned because of his orientation, people of conscience took measures to ensure that anyone who did such a thing would pay a heavy price. 3) The 72 year old man dying of natural causes does not invalidate the moral outrage engendered at the thought of such an action, nor does it render the legislation unnecessary. I have no idea what to say to the posters on that column. Do they really believe the stuff coming out of their mouths (keyboards)? How do they sleep at night?

But TV, I find the idea that anyone could bludgeon any 72-year-old man to death pretty horrific; whether the motive is the man's orientation or his money or his proximity to thugs doesn't change that. And here we have a situation where a crime was thought to have occurred but actually didn't. For whatever motives, this man apparently lied about being attacked. I'm not going to judge him for that, but I am going to shake my head at the notion that it really doesn't matter that he wasn't the victim of a hate crime, as long as the proper awareness was raised and the socially-approved moral outrage was channeled into the appropriate political directions. Because if we start believing that, then pretty soon most of the people on the evening news will be actors hired by special interest groups to raise awareness of their pet issues, and it won't *really* matter whether, for example, a particular auto manufacturer's pickup trucks actually have faulty gas tanks that will explode in a collision--or if it's just the sort of thing we *think* might happen, and we're willing to manufacture moral outrage based on 57 seconds of video footage where such an explosion occurs, and the fact that the news organization wishing to create that socially-approved response has taken the liberty of strapping explosives to said vehicle for the sake of said footage won't matter in the least. Do we really want to go there?

Erin, re-reading your post, it strikes me that often, the reason why you are against the things you are against has little to do with the things themselves and more abouT "where those things could lead if the whole world suddenly lost they damn minds:" Because if we start believing that, then pretty soon most of the people on the evening news will be actors hired by special interest groups to raise awareness of their pet issues, This simply doesn't follow. Slippery slopes are a favorite trope of the right. Why is that?

Kevin, I find it ironic that you say, "What they want is the destruction of the foundation of all American jurisprudence: equality of all citizens before the law," when speaking of those who favor hate crime legislation. Realizing now that I fit into your description, who knew that all this time I've actually been on the religious right?!

On the surface, I agreed with Rod, until the last paragraph with says the same thing the same way I have heard for years. "All crimes_____are hate crimes", etc. TV's point is more succinct in that killing a Jew for his wallet vs killing a Jew because he is a Jew is a huge distinction. To pretend or ignore the number of people who have been horribly beaten or worse simply because they are gay or black is naive or indifference being masked as semantics. I know one man who was so beaten behind his apartment simply because he had been seen exiting a gay bar...he lost his hearing and one eye. You know, if you live in the high-rise it's not easy to know what happens on the ground.
The very expression "hate crime" is a hot button issue and I very much understand why. Such terminology or law making thereabout has every chance of being abused and mis-used as is the case with the journalist Rod writes about. But until 'hate crime' legislation became law in Texas, you would be surprised to learn how many young punks thought (and still feel in cases) that killing a 'queer' is not against the law...I council teens and I've heard it. Scary stuff. .

With the flurry of attempts to establish hate crime legislation, I have often wondered why rape doesn't qualify as a hate crime against women or child abuse doesn't quality as a hate crime against children. Such legislation seems to me to take into account the "gain" a criminal gets from committing the crime. If robbery (and the money gained) is the motive, then the criminal might get 20 years for a murder. But if the motive was he just hates the person for reasons of race or sexual behavior and gets no discernible "gain" from the crime, then it becomes a hate crime and is deserving of more punishment. In other words, I infer legislators are saying that killing someone for money is somehow less "bad" than killing someone because of hate. In the case of crimes where physical damage is done, I think punishments should be based on the actual harm. However, I understand that things are more difficult to assess in the cross-burning example mentioned above. In the Detroit case, however, there was not even a murder -- just death from natural causes.

Stephen, It is not a crime to hate people. It should be taken into account if the only reason why you attacked someone is because you hate them. This means, you can hate as much as you want as long as you don't hurt other people because of your hate. KKK parades illustrate this point. They can hate, and they can display their hatred, as much as they want, and they are protected to do so. Yet if they channel this hatred into an attack, then their motive will be taken into consideration when punishing them, just the same way we do with police officer killings.

Is it a crime to hate people? Should it be? How about someone saying they hate someone? 1) Nope. 2) Nope. 3) Nope. With hate crimes we are actually making having certain thoughts and feelings illegal. Utter nonsense. We're talking about degrees of "heinousness" here. It is simply more heinous to commit a violent act against someone because of who they are. They can think whatever they want. When those thoughts lead to actions, those people need to be taken down HARD.

I am, as stated in this blog and elsewhere many times, in utter contempt of both the concept and practice of political correctness. Hate crime legislation is, for me, the extreme frontier of PC and its current potential. TV, the point really does need to be addressed: when we start categorizing people, and treating them or others according to the category, where does it stop? At what point do we cry "unreasonable!!" and stop the pressure for yet another law or legally mandated moral statement using that category? The answer, from my POV, is in drawing the line between legal action and societal action. When a murder is committed, we say no to society by placing the alleged perpetrator under the protection of the criminal justice system. We refuse to allow the victim's social circle (family, friends, neighbors, you name it) any access to the perpetrator, except under the most stringent conditions (court, rules of testimony, etc.) This is a direct result of the value we, as a society, place on the notion of justice and all of its underpinnings (innocent until proven guilty, habeus corpus, etc.) The whole notion of hate, the entire concepts of thought, ideas, and expression (up to but not including those things explicitly covered by criminal law) belong to society. We have, in fact, laws stating just that, starting with the Bill of Rights. When we take away something from society and place it under the law, we make two mistakes at the same time: we remove any onus on members of society to participate in that thing; we set a precedent for all future generations, who must continue to pass laws about that thing. There is a cure for hate. It involves things like education, direct confrontation on both individual and group levels, and society has one easy and solid recourse for those who refuse to comply with society's mandates: ostracizing, and exile. No system is perfect, but if we've learned anything in our 2+ centuries, it's that legislation is by far the least efficient and most prone to mistakes approach to social engineering that we have at our disposal. There is no need for hate crimes legislation because the concept, per se, is already covered in the Bill of Rights. We should be emphasizing the existing protections, and clarifying them if needed (and with great caution), not passing new laws and creating new precedents which are already in conflict with those older laws.

72 year old beaten for his wallet. 72 year old beaten becasue he is gay/old/black/christian/a Red Sox fan whatever. All the same result....a dead man. All the same source....the murdered puts himself int he place of God and takes life as he sees fit. I've been a cop for 19 years....a crime is hate crime. We had a gay man beaten and killed by a pack of young thugs about 10 years ago. Turns out he was gay. When it was just about him and his wallett, the press relegated it to page B-4. When it came out he was gay, it was front page. Only problem was, his being gay had nothing to do with it.
But some of you would tell me, that if the kids knew he was gay, THEN this would be a totally differetn case? All this does is belittle those killed for such mundane reasons as wallets because it is not so glamorous as a "hate crime."

TV, That is certainly an interesting comparison/question. Allow me to think out loud around it for a bit. In the late 30s to about 1941, a rising tide of revolution and armed conflict resolved into the first Yugoslav civil war. My personal family history has the following evocative and possibly apocryphal story, but its gist is perfectly accurate: my grandfather was sitting in jail awaiting execution by the communists when he asked after his four sons (my father being third). Their answer: to bring them the heads of the two eldest. In the meantime, my father was a POW in a fascist-Italian camp, awaiting disposition when the Allies rolled through. When Tito was going about consolidating his power, his internal purges included naming his erstwhile enemies war criminals. That included my father. When Tito later (early 50s) declared universal amnesty, my father and his friend (as witnessed by my mother) looked at each other and said in one voice: we can never go home. So, with all that thinking out loud: the difference between colateral damage and ethnic cleansing is politics. As you contemplate the ramifications to that, I refer you to my previous post.

My question is why is one murder different than another? One more time: Crime 1) Man comes home and sees wife in bed with friend. Man gets gun and shoots wife. Crime 2) Man sees two men holding hands on the street. Man gets gun and shoots one of the hand-holding men. Two separate crimes, two separate motives, both with the same result. Yes. One is more heinous than the other. I'll let you decide which.

tv, Thank you maybe I am dense but this response does illustrate your point better for me. I agree that second crime seems worse to me as well. Although, I am not confident that it actually is worse.
But, to be fair the crimes should be. 1) Man sees a man and woman holding hands on the street. Man gets gun and shoots one of them. 2) Man sees two men holding hands on the street. Man gets gun and shoots one of the hand-holding men. Now, why does one crime deserve more punishment than the other?
Of course, I think the points Franklin made about this are still reasons to not have hate crimes.

Now, why does one crime deserve more punishment than the other? What was the motive for crime 1?

Not really, stephen. I've heard the same lines before, though, about this subject. It's hard to know who is actively engaged and who is just spouting the talking points. Sorry I proceeded as if this conversation was another example of the latter.

"What was the motive for crime 1?" Well, tv, I'm trying to answer it, but I'm still trying to figure which crime 1 you're referring to. And now you've confused me even more by bringing in a whole new set of scenarios (which I will read after I type this in). I'm guessing that your first and second crime ones are both committed out of jealousy. (Am I right?) And I assume the gunman in crime 2 is not a gay man jealous of one of the two men holding hands, but a heterosexual motivated by hate and prejudice. Right? So, that's how I read your scenarios. Now, if you mean to ask which is worse, jealous rage or prejudicial rage, I have to admit that's quite a judgment call. We could discuss this for a long, long time. You could add crime 3, man kills other driver in road rage incident. Now which is worse? 1, 2, or 3?

thanks tv Wildwest, what are the distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter?

From Find Law: "Murder: Second degree Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car."

stephen, Ask tovart. He knows a lot more than I do. I just know the distinctions exist.

If his wife's killer gets 30 years in prison, and the killer of the gay man gets life, aren't we telling the husband that his wife's murder doesn't cry out for the same degree of justice? That her life wasn't as valuable? No, under Franklin's examples given, it simply says that some variations of the crime, as they were not motivated by irrational prejudice, were not "as heinous." The results were the same, of course, but the "callousness" of the acts are of varying degrees. Let's examine his categories. To reiterate: 1) Man and woman holding hands. 2) Man and man holding hands. A) The killer is the former lover of one of the pair. B) The killer is absolutely sure that he or she is punishing the victim for a violation of morality. Which, then, is more "heinous?" 1A or 2A? - Neither. These are the same crime separated only by gender. 1A or 2B? - 2B It is motivated purely by prejudice with no perception of one party having "done someone wrong." 1B or 2A? - 1B - see above. 1B or 2B? - Neither. They are the same crime separated only by gender.
Motive matters.

A lot of the categorizing is for statistical purposes. The government really likes to keep tabs on the amount of crimes, the types of crimes, perpetrators and victims. Some of it is for sociological reasons, some is for to see how many cases a judge has to handle, et cetera. We have a complex system for sure. IMO that is a good thing.

TV, I agree. Motive matters. I take the personal stance that when we examine murder (and I hasten to qualify that as intentional killing, not manslaughter), I refuse to give one motivation less weight than any other, because it is a crime of the worst magnitude regardless of motivation. My disagreement with you is personal in that respect, simply because you imply lesser weight when you demand more. I hope that was clear. The last thing I want to do is offend you on any level.

Franklin, its not offensive, but the law really is actively doing just that now, as we speak. If they don't accomplish it by virtue of a "hate crime" category, they throw in additional counts, et cetera. Sometimes prosecutors can be very artful when faced with an outrageous crime. They sometimes do "throw the book" at 'em. Adding another category might not make too much of a difference in practice.

Tovart, TV, I think you are asking the same question: isn't the current system more than a little broken, and shouldn't we be doing something about that? Tovart, I experienced precisely what you describe, not a month ago, when I sat on a jury trying a man for rape, incest and corruption of a minor. There were two incidents, but all three could easily have been used on just the one allegation: that he raped his 12-year-old grandniece. The only difference between rape and incest is consent, meaning that a charge of incest is possible even if no force or coercion is involved. The only difference between rape/incest and corruption of a minor is the act of intercourse: both involve sexual contact. We could, I suppose, argue forever over whether consent or its lack, intercourse or its lack, singly or together constitute more or less heinous in that case. In my view, they "threw the book" in the hope of hitting him, period. They failed, we found him not guilty on all counts (much to our personal dismay, I should add). All I know, a girl was traumatized, and we couldn't punish her alleged perpetrator under the rules of a criminal trial. TV, I know that we live in a world and society where it's no longer possible, but I would want to see both bat-wielders in jail for the same amount of time; but, the idjits looking for queers would return to their community branded as idjits, stripped of basic respect and dignity for holding prejudicial attitudes completely out of step with both social and moral standards. So, in the end, I can't honestly say I disagree with your desires in these matters. My desire is neither pratical nor really possible, and if I'm going to be at all compassionate, I have to compromise in your direction at least somewhat. I won't promise to like it (indeed, I'll promise I won't like it), but I can agree that something must be done.

Franklin, much luv for you for this weekend (hopefully crime and hate free) and keep on keepin' on

I don't necessarily agree with Erin's supporting details, but her conclusion is one I would very much like to see addressed. In my impractical world, every judge would be ready to sentence a convicted criminal on the heavier side when the criminal's motivation was proven, in court, to be egregious. The things we lump under "hate crime" would be part of the egregious category. No further laws should be needed. TV, tovart, thanks. I love you, too. My weekend prospects are a bit brighter just for that. :)

Regarding the hypothetical of beating a person with a baseball bat to settle a debt and beating a person with a baseball bat because the person is gay ... I know I live a sheltered life, but to my mind *any* person who uses a baseball bat on another human being is a sick person that needs to be imprisoned and to be rehabilitated. (Assuming of course we're not talking about an act of self defense.) In other words, I believe every act of extreme violence is a form of hate.

I agree, Diane. I don't want people who have assaulted others with baseball bats walking the streets where I live, either. Yikes!

TV said, "That there are juries in the past and the present that have overlooked such patterns because the victim is somehow unsavory (black, latino, gay, etc.) is why legislation is required to up the ante against these crimes." But then you're saying, in effect, that juries can't be trusted not to commit acts of 'hate' that result in injustice, and therefore hate crimes legislation is meant more to force a jury to behave the way we want them to, then it is to punish actual crimes. I'd like to see proof that juries around the country routinely treat people who commit crimes against gays (or any other group, for that matter) with unjust leniency before I'm going to jump on the hate crimes legislation bandwagon. It's a pretty amazing assertion, after all, to say that a jury of twelve assorted people (not counting alternates) are all so blinded by their own prejudices that they would somehow approve a criminal's violent acts so long as the victim is someone they dislike or find, in your words, 'unsavory.' I think people are far more complicated than that, and that few people really act like the caricatures of bigots that you'd have to accept before you'd believe that *so many* Americans are just so full of hate that they can't become an impartial jury. Which is why, ultimately, hate crimes legislation is meant to be more a social message than an effective crime-fighting tool. These *particular* people, the laws tell us, are so much more worthy of our special care and protection that crimes committed against them are *automatically* worse than crimes committed against other people, unless it can be PROVED that the perpetrator was not in some way influenced by motives of "hate" against one of these victims--and the burden of proof will be on the defense attorney, not the prosecutor. This burden will be an onerous one, besides, because the assumption behind the law is that the "hate" against these specific people or groups is so prevalent and so heavily distributed throughout society that we need special laws to stamp out that "hate," an assumption that not only begs the question, but creates the very real danger that any legitimate criticism of certain people or groups becomes frowned upon as an example of that widespread and egregious "hate."

Again, though, TV, I'd have to say that we do need to know that this is actually happening, and whether or not it happens often enough to make creating new laws about it a good or desirable thing. For instance, you mention people receiving light sentences *because* the victims were black or gay. I'd like to see current evidence of that, and I'd also like to see where it can be demonstrated that the jury actually did act out of their own hate or prejudice toward the victim. Sometimes a person gets a light sentence because it was a first offense. Sometimes a person has a really good lawyer, who creates doubt in the mind of the juror that the defendant actually committed the crime or was significantly involved in it. Sometimes a jury recommends a heavy sentence but the judge, due to his own deep-seated dislike of lengthy criminal sentences and his belief that rehabilitation is more effective than punishment in these cases, actually rejects the jury's recommendations and issues a sentence that amounts to probation or community service. Point is, we can't know that some gay-basher got off with a slap on the wrist *just* because the victim was gay. Even if the judge is gay it doesn't guarantee that the perpetrator is going to get a sentence *we* like or approve of. The workings of the justice system are way more complex than that.

Point is, we can't know that some gay-basher got off with a slap on the wrist *just* because the victim was gay. Even if the judge is gay it doesn't guarantee that the perpetrator is going to get a sentence *we* like or approve of. The workings of the justice system are way more complex than that. Yes - I'm sure lots of good, middle-of-the-roaders felt the same way in the South during the lynching days. While nice, staid, reasonable folks "collect evidence," a very small and insignificant minority of citizens get to continue to be victimized. Cold comfort, I'm sure. It's like back in the early eighties when AIDS was GRID and no one really cared to listen. Why should they when it was killing "all the right people?" If I may recommend some light listening for the evening - Nina Simone's "Mississippi Goddamn" is particularly appropriate for this conversation. Yeah, okay, maybe I'm playing the melodrama card. It's hardly uncalled-for, though, in the face of such careful and meticulous indifference.

TV, "...careful and meticulous indifference..."? You wrong me, sir. Where have I ever said that I'm indifferent to the idea of violent crime? I don't support the notion of any human being attacking, beating, or killing any other human being, save only in actual self-defense. I don't believe people should get off lightly when they hurt other people, either. That said, I believe in the rule of law, and that every accused person should have the right to defend himself/herself in a court of law, and be judged by a jury of his/her peers. Laws like hate crimes laws tend to undermine this process by attempting to bias the jury against the defendant before the trial has even begun. Before we even decide if he/she is guilty of the crime, we have to try his/her thoughts and see if we can find any "hate" lurking there. How is it even possible for a jury to remain impartial during this process? Can a jury find, in effect, that a particular person is guilty of hate, but innocent of the crime with which they are being charged? I've seen anti-Catholic hate speech, you know (Jack Chick comes to mind, again). I may deplore it; I may find it disgusting; I may try to convince someone not to say/write/sculpt in chocolate such things, on the grounds of civility and the value of respect: but I will never condone the notion that it should be against the law for those things to be said (or written or sculpted or dipped in, um, less than exalted fluids). Either we are a society that believes in free speech, or we are not.

curiouser?

I've seen the same things Erin has seen, and I've also had the vision of my parents' journey through life, from being targets for their place of birth or religion, to loving a US that allowed anyone who wanted to to treat them as less than human for the way the talked or their customs. I also spent the weekend unable to post to any combox. Now that's something to pass a law about!! :)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, TV; I've been a little short of time lately. How does the issue of hate crimes legislation intersect with free speech rights? I'll try to explain. Free speech is not an unlimited right, of course. No one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I think most reasonable people would agree that when speech in and of itself puts others in direct and immediate danger, the right to speak freely must be balanced against the rights of others. But in the case of hate crimes legislation, we have an attempt to criminalize speech that is not putting other people in direct or immediate danger. By saying that speech which "may" incite others to violence or which a listener "believes may" incite others to violence is illegal under hate crimes laws is an expansion far, far beyond the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. Now, how does this work in a hate crimes case? Suppose that Jim Gray owns a small construction company. He refuses to hire illegal immigrants to work for him, but his competitors who *do* hire (and exploit) illegal immigrants are undercutting his business. Mr. Gray has been heard to say, especially when he's had a few beers, that all those bleep bleep Mexicans should be rounded up and sent back home. He doesn't specify that he's talking about illegal immigrants, necessarily, though those who know him well know that that's what he means. One day Mr. Gray gets into a fight with a man who works for a rival construction company. Blows are exchanged. The man's name is Hernando Rodriguez, and he's in America legally under one of the visa programs, but he and Mr. Gray have had some heated exchanges before about politics, business, and other issues, and though both of their groups of friends deplore the fistfight they're not really surprised by it. But Mr. Rodriguez sues not only Mr. Gray, but a local radio talk show personality, under hate crimes laws. Mr. Rodriguez asserts in his lawsuit that Mr. Gray hit him because he's Latino and because Mr. Gray hates Latinos. The talk show host is included in the lawsuit under the grounds that his opinions about illegal immigration and his somewhat inflammatory remarks incited Mr. Gray, a devoted listener of the program, to violence. Under laws like the California law, there's a real possibility that both Mr. Gray and the radio host will be convicted of a hate crime. The radio host would most likely be fined, and Mr. Gray could face jail time--even if all the witnesses of the fistfight said that Mr. Rodriguez threw the first actual punch! How does this *not* criminalize speech? Essentially, people who have strong opinions about subjects like illegal immigration, gay marriage, welfare reform etc. will have to be aware that any remarks they make could at any time come under the scrutiny of the law--and if the remarks can be twisted in such a way that it appears that people, and not issues, are being criticized, a hate crimes charge may result. But it isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal to criticize people, or even to be a bigot! I may deplore bigotry quite deeply, and I do, but I don't think it should be against the law to hold even opinions I personally find deeply distasteful (as I mentioned above in my examples of anti-Catholic speech).
Essentially, this means that anyone who does criticize gay marriage, for example, would have to preface his/her remarks with a disclaimer along the lines of: These opinions of mine are intended to discuss the issue of expanding the definition of marriage only, and should not be construed to be intended to deprive, or appear to deprive, any individual citizen or group of citizens of any rights granted to him or them by any court of law; further, these remarks in no way condone any violent action being taken against any person or group of people for any reason, particularly people who might in some special way be impacted by the issue I intend to discuss. Imagine if I'd had to append that statement to every comment I made on the recent gay marriage thread. Imagine if I could be opening myself up to a lawsuit or worse if I didn't. Then tell me that hate crimes laws have nothing to do with free speech!

TV, you said, "What you are arguing for is excluding evidence that might make a defendant look more guilty. I don't cotton to that. You may think it's irrelevant. The people of California do not. It is my hope that the rest of the country will follow suit." No offense taken, btw--I never mind a strong statement or two of opinion. But I would like to clarify something here. I don't want to exclude any evidence. I do think that trials should include a defendant's motivations, biases, and thought processes leading up to the crime, both those that tend to show guilt and those that tend to mitigate or exculpate it. What I don't want is to create situations where bias is *automatically* assumed simply because a) the victim comes from a special, legally protected class of people; or b) the defendant appears bigoted toward the class of people to which the victim belongs; or c)both. As you pointed out, even in my hypothetical example it's really hard to determine whether the fictional Mr. Gray was influenced by his biases--and it would be hard for Mr. Gray himself to determine if that was the case! Were Mr. Gray real, he would be a whole mass of conflicting motives and ideas, just like the rest of us. He might worship alongside Latino families, do construction jobs at homes owned by Mexican-Americans, even flirt with a waitress named Rosita at a local coffee shop; yet he might really be angry at the situation the influx of cheap labor puts him in, and sincerely wish for more stringent enforcement of immigration law. People are seldom strictly logical or strictly fair in their thought processes, but not all of the shadows in their minds are hate, and not all of them should trigger automatic fines or sentences in the case of a legal matter or a crime. If a devout Christian working in a human resource department turns down a job applicant who is openly gay, but who also has a very spotty work history which he can't really explain in an interview, is she acting out of bias toward gays, or in the best interests of her company? Should the gay job applicant be able to sue her on the basis of "hate"? If a woman walking alone at dusk in a high crime area notices two black men following her, and she immediately enters an open restaurant and calls a taxi, is she motivated by "hate"? Or is it just the neighborhood, the statistics, the hour, and the fact that she's alone? If a prominent man with political ambitions doesn't hire a Latina to be his children's nanny, is this "hate"? Or is he worried that her paperwork seems iffy and that a "nannygate" scandal will be raised at some point in the future if he gives her the job? It's hard to define "hate" even in a casual sense. How do we define it in a legal sense without taking away the right of human beings to be the complex, illogical, irrational, aggravating, yet lovable messes most of us are?

And, tv, I submit it's the only thing we should do. I'm going to risk an assumption here, that you've never sat on a jury for a trial, civil or criminal. If you had, you'd have a clearer understanding of the care that is taken for both the defendant and the plaintiff. You will also see, in action, the slightly extra weight given to the defendant side. I won't lecture you on this, especially since it would be based on my personal experience of being a juror (several times). But, lacking the chance to be one yourself any time soon, I'd urge you to at least seek out the closest law school, which usually (I think it's ubiquitous) holds a mock trial as part of the final training of its students. Or, just take time to attend trials, civil and criminal, as an observer. I don't intend or expect to change your mind at all... nor, in my heart, do I really think I want to. But, your better and clearer understanding will at least give you better and clearer targets at which to aim your ire. That's worth something, eh? :)

Sorry, I was rushed. It is my impression that while you do have valid criticisms to make, TV, your targets are chosen poorly. If you had a better understanding of the process from the inside, absent changes in your opinions, you would at least find better targets. Hate crime legislation is to motive as a thermonuclear device is to a pea-shooter, when it comes to targeting the problems. That's my POV.

In point of fact, no, you are not getting all of it: I am, in fact, supportive of your goals, but find your (general) efforts comprising too much wasted energy. If you know the system better, you'd be more effective in changing it. You won't acquire that better knowledge except from the inside. One thing: those African Americans (their children, mostly) waited nearly 100 years for white Northerners (starting with politicians) to have the cojones to bring the whole thing to a head. Sometimes, we do have to wait for the glacier to move, if only to give us room to light the fire that gets the real melting started.

Looking back at this, I wonder why it is that the Right, namely of the theistic sort, has absolutely no problem whining and pandering to lawmakers over some perceived outrage, demanding that someone take action (usually followed by a *sob* and a sniffled "for the chidren!") would balk at other gorups exercising their right to participate in the completely effed up process that has become the law in this country?

And hasten to add: I don't accept your restriction to "the Right". I see it on both sides.

Well, to be fair ;), we do hear the Left pouting and sobbing about the poor little cheeldren's self-esteem because they score poorly on standardized tests, or because they are stigmatized because they can't run as far or jump as high... From my POV, there are laudable and ridiculous examples galore on both sides. As for rules, I prefer to point out the emperor's undersized genitalia hiding under the oversized paunch, and actually mention that I know this because he is, in fact, naked. There's truth, ugly truth, and ways of expressing truth that serve to hide it. You and I, TV, will only ever argue over methods of expression; I have no doubt that we see the same truth.