We don't need no Hate-crimes laws! do we?

[u-dog]

Picked this up off of Yahoo news:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...e_N.htm?csp=34

The number of hate crimes in the U.S. rose by 8% in 2006 with some of the biggest increases against gays, Hispanics and Muslims.
Statistics released Monday by the FBI show that of the 7,722 hate crimes that occurred, more than half were racially motivated.

The number of hate crimes against whites increased 7%, from 828 in 2005 to 890 a year later. While the number of incidents against blacks remained steady, the majority of racially-motivated hate crimes, almost seven out of 10, are committed against blacks.

"Groups that traditionally have been attacked continue to be attacked," says Brian Levin, a criminologist and executive director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino.

"But we're seeing a democratization of hate, albeit to a smaller degree. The light incremental moves reflect a general trend that we hear anecdotally that nobody has a monopoly on hate."

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Justice Department | Muslims | Federal Bureau of Investigation | Hispanics
The number of attacks on gays increased by 18%, from 2005 to 2006, while the number of incidents against Hispanics increased by 10%.

Attacks against Muslims increased 22% from 156 in 2006 to 128 in 2005. However, the number is down significantly from 2001, when 481 incidents were recorded.

Levin says the increases reflect the tension in the ongoing public dialogue about gay rights, terrorism and immigration. "They spill over into violent incidents," he says.

Hate crimes have gained national attention since the case of the Jena Six, six black students who were charged in 2006 with beating a white classmate in rural Jena, La.

The beating followed a number of racial incidents, including one incident where three white students hung nooses on a schoolyard tree. None of the incidents that occurred in Jena in 2006 were counted as hate crimes.

Since July of this year, the case has touched off a series of hangings of nooses in schools and workplaces that led the Justice Department to create a task force to investigate more than 40 incidents.

On Friday, civil rights activists including Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III led thousands to demonstrate in front of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., to protest the department's handling of hate crimes.

In a statement, Sharpton said "The FBI report confirms what we have been saying for many months about the severe increase in hate crimes and why many thousands of citizens marched on Friday -- in front of the U.S. Justice Department. What is not reported, however, is the lack of prosecution and serious investigation by the Justice Department to counter this increase in hate crimes."

In 2006, the Justice Department prosecuted the fewest hate crimes in 10 years. The department charged 22 people with hate crimes in 2006, down 71% from 76 in 1997.
Erik Ablin, a spokesman for the Justice Department, has said the decline in prosecution mirrored an overall decrease through 2005 in hate crime reports. The department also focused more attention on other types of civil rights cases, including police abuse and human trafficking.

While the FBI data is the only available data that tracks hate crime incidents yearly, it is still flawed because victims often are afraid to report crimes and police agencies report inconsistently, says Steve Wessler, executive director for the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence. For example, in 2006, 12,620 police agencies reported incidents, compared to 12,417 in 2005.

Wessler says the number of hate crimes is likely higher. He and other anti-hate advocates point to a survey published in 2005 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that found that the number of annual hate crimes is closer to 191,000.

the percentage of all hate-crimes directed at GLBT people is 15% Thats somewhere between 50% and 700% higher than our incidence in the populations at large (depending on whether we are2% of the population or 10% -- I personally think that 6% is the most compelling number so that would mean that GLBT people are the object of hatecrimes twice as often as our incidence in the general population would suggest.

So... why is it again that we don't need hate crime legislation?

And under the BUsh administration... hate crime prosecutions are ... DOWN ???

And we don't need an impeachment trial ... WHY?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Picked this up off of Yahoo news:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...e_N.htm?csp=34



the percentage of all hate-crimes directed at GLBT people is 15% Thats somewhere between 50% and 700% higher than our incidence in the populations at large (depending on whether we are2% of the population or 10% -- I personally think that 6% is the most compelling number so that would mean that GLBT people are the object of hatecrimes twice as often as our incidence in the general population would suggest.

So... why is it again that we don't need hate crime legislation?

And under the BUsh administration... hate crime prosecutions are ... DOWN ???

And we don't need an impeachment trial ... WHY?

I just put together a Google Spreadsheet comparing 2005 and 2006. If you go to the right most table you'll the the statistical increases (or decreases in some cases):
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...2PXH_0JGxmqzIQ

The FBI site is here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/

This is definitely a challenging time for the Hate Crimes Bill. My best hope is that it can stay attached to the Defense Reauthorization Bill so that it is insulated from the threatened veto. It seems that a lot of conservative members of the House want it removed. I guess we'll find out after the Thanksgiving Recess.

[RedneckDyke]

I have mixed feelings about hate crime bills. I think ALL crimes against people and their property should be punished. But, in a hate crime bill, hurting someone because you hate that they are gay is punished more than hurting someone because you just feel like hurting someone and they were the first person you see. I don't like the idea of punishing some people more becaue of what went on in their heads. Too much like thought crimes.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by RedneckDyke

I have mixed feelings about hate crime bills. I think ALL crimes against people and their property should be punished. But, in a hate crime bill, hurting someone because you hate that they are gay is punished more than hurting someone because you just feel like hurting someone and they were the first person you see. I don't like the idea of punishing some people more becaue of what went on in their heads. Too much like thought crimes.

I want to ask you to read in full the Frederick M. Lawrence testimony before the House of Representatives on April 17, 2007 where he meticulously explains why it is legally justified to add additional penalties for bias motivated violence. Here is the link:
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/hate_crimes_law.html

Then I want you to read the story of David Ritcheston who also testified before the House of Representatives as a victim of hate crime. He later committed suicide because he could not escape the emotional scars of the hate crime that he endured.
http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/david_...son/index.html

You're expressing a common misunderstanding that I think arises from lack of exposure to the victims of Hate Crimes and how the violence affects them personally and the communities they are connected with.

[Zerbie]

This still misses the critical point of why we need hate crime laws. Yes, these crimes target entire communities and have a higher likelihood of leaving traumatic scars on victims and witnesses than random violence. But the main reason these laws are needed is enforcement. Hate crimes laws are needed to spur law enforcement to recognition of the problem and to actually respond to the crimes appropriately.

Hate crime laws are necessary because such crimes are too often NOT investigated or prosecuted without them.

There is a horrid history of law enforcement turning a blind eye to crimes committed against members of a marginalized group, or of dismissing the complaints, and even ridiculing or shaming victims instead of assisting them. The greatest psychological wounding of a hate crime comes from the community, especially the "helping" community, turning a blind eye and condoning the damage done, or worse, participating in it. It is absolutely critical that law enforcement recognize hate crime and respond to it in ways that validate and reassure members of the victimized community, while sending a message to perpetrators that their actions will not be tolerated, but WILL be investigated and prosecuted. Without that kind of response from police, perpetrators learn that they can get away with crime as long as it's against "the f*gg*ts," or whichever marginalized group we are talking about.

Hate crimes laws are about recognition of the problem, sending a message to the victim community that they are being protected, sending a message to the perpetrators that they will be prosecuted, and spurring local law enforcement to appropriately respond to and ENFORCE the laws that they have been supposed to enforce all along.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

But the main reason these laws are needed is enforcement. Hate crimes laws are needed to spur law enforcement to recognition of the problem and to actually respond to the crimes appropriately.

Hate crime laws are necessary because such crimes are too often NOT investigated or prosecuted without them.

First of all, to throw out "thought crimes" is to throw out the concept of motivation. We already determine "thought crimes" to the extent that we determine the difference between manslaughter, negligent homicide, third, second, and first degree murder.

I see hate crimes as a level of first degree, in that it is planned and targeted. An important factor to consider when investigating or prosecuting a crime.

Secondly, it's my understanding and experience that the anti-gay industry canard against hate crimes laws (but only for LGBT persons) is thus:

No hate crime laws = no record of hate crimes = no need for hate crime laws.

It's the same type formula for anti-marriage equality: No gay marriage = all gays are promiscuous = no need for gay marriage.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

This still misses the critical point of why we need hate crime laws. Yes, these crimes target entire communities and have a higher likelihood of leaving traumatic scars on victims and witnesses than random violence. But the main reason these laws are needed is enforcement. Hate crimes laws are needed to spur law enforcement to recognition of the problem and to actually respond to the crimes appropriately.

Hate crime laws are necessary because such crimes are too often NOT investigated or prosecuted without them.

There is a horrid history of law enforcement turning a blind eye to crimes committed against members of a marginalized group, or of dismissing the complaints, and even ridiculing or shaming victims instead of assisting them. The greatest psychological wounding of a hate crime comes from the community, especially the "helping" community, turning a blind eye and condoning the damage done, or worse, participating in it. It is absolutely critical that law enforcement recognize hate crime and respond to it in ways that validate and reassure members of the victimized community, while sending a message to perpetrators that their actions will not be tolerated, but WILL be investigated and prosecuted. Without that kind of response from police, perpetrators learn that they can get away with crime as long as it's against "the f*gg*ts," or whichever marginalized group we are talking about.

Hate crimes laws are about recognition of the problem, sending a message to the victim community that they are being protected, sending a message to the perpetrators that they will be prosecuted, and spurring local law enforcement to appropriately respond to and ENFORCE the laws that they have been supposed to enforce all along.

This is a good point. Unfortunately the Justice Department has the lowest number of hate crime prosecutions in 10 years...so i'm not sure this holds true in reality

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

This is a good point. Unfortunately the Justice Department has the lowest number of hate crime prosecutions in 10 years...so i'm not sure this holds true in reality

What are you not sure "holds true?"

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

First of all, to throw out "thought crimes" is to throw out the concept of motivation. We already determine "thought crimes" to the extent that we determine the difference between manslaughter, negligent homicide, third, second, and first degree murder.

I see hate crimes as a level of first degree, in that it is planned and targeted. An important factor to consider when investigating or prosecuting a crime.

Secondly, it's my understanding and experience that the anti-gay industry canard against hate crimes laws (but only for LGBT persons) is thus:

No hate crime laws = no record of hate crimes = no need for hate crime laws.

It's the same type formula for anti-marriage equality: No gay marriage = all gays are promiscuous = no need for gay marriage.

Hey E,

I can't actually figure out your point. Since you responded to me, I'll guess that you're taking my point to mean that the 'motivation' question is irrelevant. I wouldn't go that far - as you point out, intentions get charged and prosecuted already. I am of the opinion though that the matter of enforcement is the primary issue that needs to be addressed.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Hey E,

I can't actually figure out your point.

And I was so sure I was clear that time

Since you responded to me...

I can see now how I gave that impression, sorry. It was directed more toward what RedneckDyke had said about the "thought crimes" concern.

My whole point was basically to concur with yours:

"Hate crime laws are necessary because such crimes are too often NOT investigated or prosecuted without them."

With that, I believe there is a direct correlation between the awareness of hate crimes, and the motive to prevent them. Kind of like any problem.

And so ultimately, the more hate crimes that get investigated and prosecuted, the more accurate the picture of the enormity of this problem becomes. And thus, the more hate crimes legislation is supported.

And beyond even an enforcement paradigm, if information is power, and preventing violence is paramount, then as far as reporting and statistics goes, this is the most important type of information possible.

Point being, hate crimes legislation isn't just about providing justice, it's about providing a record of justice provided. Which in turn, generates more interest in providing justice.

:::

I'm not unhappy with that, but I would still ask, does that work?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

And I was so sure I was clear that time



I can see now how I gave that impression, sorry. It was directed more toward what RedneckDyke had said about the "thought crimes" concern.

My whole point was basically to concur with yours:

"Hate crime laws are necessary because such crimes are too often NOT investigated or prosecuted without them."

With that, I believe there is a direct correlation between the awareness of hate crimes, and the motive to prevent them. Kind of like any problem.

And so ultimately, the more hate crimes that get investigated and prosecuted, the more accurate the picture of the enormity of this problem becomes. And thus, the more hate crimes legislation is supported.

And beyond even an enforcement paradigm, if information is power, and preventing violence is paramount, then as far as reporting and statistics goes, this is the most important type of information possible.

Point being, hate crimes legislation isn't just about providing justice, it's about providing a record of justice provided. Which in turn, generates more interest in providing justice.

:::

I'm not unhappy with that, but I would still ask, does that work?

Oh - I thought you were disagreeing with me.

Okay, so you were supporting my point about enforcement. Then, I really like the point you added which I have to admit I never thought of it in that way before, about the record of hate crimes showing the need for the legislation. You've put your finger on another interesting problem.

One of our big stumbling blocks in that area now is under-reporting of hate crimes and bias incidents by members of marginalized groups. Let's stick to the LGBT community for purposes of this conversation. As you already know E, we don't have an accurate record of anti-gay hate crime because victims are reluctant to report to police for fear of re-victimization at worst, or having their valid concerns laughed away or perfunctorily dismissed. Accurate records of incidents depend on the victim's willingness to report, plus on the willingness of law enforcement to acknowledge and accurately identify the incident.

Even once we have hate crimes legislation, what will it avail us if the justice department is headed by homophobes who refuse to acknowledge the problem and protect the community?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Even once we have hate crimes legislation, what will it avail us if the justice department is headed by homophobes who refuse to acknowledge the problem and protect the community?

I think this was the point I was making above...ahh that egg nog

In 2006, the Justice Department prosecuted the fewest hate crimes in 10 years. The department charged 22 people with hate crimes in 2006, down 71% from 76 in 1997.

Getting the Hate Crimes Bill passed is important but then what?

There are several issues.

First, how do you get local law enforcement and the Justice Department onboard with the law (and properly funded)?

Second, what mechanisms can you put in place that allows LGBT people the safety they need to report hate crimes?

Third, how do you promote more generalized respect for LGBT people so that the system of oppression that results in violence is slowly dissolved?

At the Transgender Day of Remembrance, one of the speakers was from one of the anti-violence organizations here in Chicago. She pleaded with LGBT people to report hate crimes and shared the resources available at her organization. They would walk victims of hate crime through the system.

The law is certainly a good step but what is next?

[sailaway58]

Parents of murdered gay man submit question for debate

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

This still misses the critical point of why we need hate crime laws. Yes, these crimes target entire communities and have a higher likelihood of leaving traumatic scars on victims and witnesses than random violence. But the main reason these laws are needed is enforcement. Hate crimes laws are needed to spur law enforcement to recognition of the problem and to actually respond to the crimes appropriately.

My only challenge to this statement is that if law enforcement don't understand the very nature of hate crimes they are not going to enforce them properly.

The Internet is full of statements that go like this: "Hate crimes laws give groups 'special status'. Anyone that is beat up or murdered should get the same justice. Why should a gay man beat up for his sexual orientation get all these extra law enforcement resources?" There are even some powerful gay voices that say this like Andrew Sullivan.

It is going to be really tough to get the law enforcement community on board with prosecuting hate crimes unless they understand the additional pain that victims of hate crime endure due to the bias components of the crime (Not to mention the effects of hate crimes in the target community and society at large).

If the law enforcement community REALLY got it...then taking bias component of a hate crime seriously would be second nature.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

My only challenge to this statement is that if law enforcement don't understand the very nature of hate crimes they are not going to enforce them properly.

The Internet is full of statements that go like this: "Hate crimes laws give groups 'special status'. Anyone that is beat up or murdered should get the same justice. Why should a gay man beat up for his sexual orientation get all these extra law enforcement resources?" There are even some powerful gay voices that say this like Andrew Sullivan.

It is going to be really tough to get the law enforcement community on board with prosecuting hate crimes unless they understand the additional pain that victims of hate crime endure due to the bias components of the crime (Not to mention the effects of hate crimes in the target community and society at large).

Ah - we see this differently. Your point is valid. I'm afraid my point is more basic still than understanding the traumatic nature and spiral effect of hate crimes. My point about enforcement has been that homophobia can be so blood thirsty that anti-gay hate crimes sometimes go unenforced not because law enforcement doesn't understand the psycho-social import of hate crime, but because some still (or at least in recent years) do not value gay *people* enough as human beings to enforce laws against assault that already exist unless a higher organization, a statute, public pressure - something - is cracking the whip over them to get busy and do their job. I have heard and read too many horror stories to believe that all law enforcement is as wonderful on this topic as, for example, our truly wonderful, caring, and friendly police officers in Phoenix.

How do we create a society where hate crime victims feel safe to approach law enforcement, how indeed?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

How do we create a society where hate crime victims feel safe to approach law enforcement, how indeed?

I'm not sure we can do this in the immediate future and will still need LGBT anti-violence projects to advocate for LGBT people and to help victims through the system.

If I were a victim of a hate crime in Chicago, I would first call the anti-violence project and then go through the system with their assistance. Just my take on where we are in the city for now.

[tdogg]

We desparately need THE federal hate crimes bill. Did anyone get a chance to read the article in the current issue of The Advocate regarding the young Mr. Singh's murder in Sacramento? A group of Slavic evangelicals (all men) began to spew out racial and anti-gay filth to Mr. Singh and his friends, of course after the perps sent the women & children home. They then began throwing some punches, hmmm. after blocking the exits of Singh and his friends.

One threw a good punch to Singh, causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head. He lost consciousness and died 4 days later. What am I thinking??? Of course the young Slavic evangelical didn't kill Singh, he only threw him a little punch. It was a complete accident that Singh fell and hit his head, and a total accident that it caused his death. (We are supposed to buy this crappy excuse??)

So, out of this, I get nothing to convince me that we DON'T need a hate crimes bill. At the federal level. It's not a nice thing to have, it is an absolute NECESSITY. This one example is only a drop in the bucket of hate crimes in our communities, across our country and around the world.

[antonyh]

[Vanessa White]

Years ago, I worked as a educational program manager at a local women's shelter program. Part of my job was to go out to police stations at their roll call, and talk with them about domestic violence issues, and the info about why women stay, go back, don't press charges, etc. Even going to those roll calls on a regular basis did not change the beliefs among some of those officers, which was to blame the victim, meaning the woman if it was the woman that was victimized. On a real basic level, it was a challenge, especially I think for the male officers, to fully believe that domestic violence is a problem, a secret problem, and that some women stay or return out of fear or low self-esteem or whateve the issues at hand are. Maybe some of the resistance once again, as well as many other issues, has to do with how we are all socialized in our gender roles. For heterosexual men, especially those that have no sensitivity to gay issues, I would imagine they see gay men as a real affront to their masculinity. That is often, I believe, why the violence is so intense and rageful. Our gender socialization is so ingrained that it takes a lot of work to undo much of what has been done. Add to that the fact that in general, some law enforcement personnel may see members of our community as not needing protection, maybe not "worthy" enough. They don't see the "harm" in it all; much like teachers in school settings who let the antigay epithets fly without addressing it, even laughing at such talk.

We have so much work to do beyond the legislation.

[antiochian]

Politicians (and law enforcement) need to realize this is an issue that cannot be danced around. It's not about whether or not they agree with how someone else lives, it's not about what the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or The Farmer's Almanac says about homo/bisexuality and transgendereds. Real people are in danger every day. REAL people are dying--bigotry is lethal. Antigay violence affects straight people too. Straight men who dress or act in ways that make them supposedly look gay have been attacked. Heterosexual couples have been mistaken for gay couples and been attacked. Why should America's politicians let 7 Bible verses keep them from protecting America's citizens--all of them?!