E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA jury has acquitted two cousins accused of attacking a Kentucky man because he is gay, the first time prosecutors pursued federal hate crime charges in a case where the victim was allegedly targeted due to their sexual orientation, media reports say.
However, Anthony Jenkins and Jason Jenkins were convicted on Wednesday on kidnapping and conspiracy charges in the assault on Kenneth Pennington in a state park last year.
The Department of Justice had argued that the pair assaulted Pennington, 29, because he was gay and said the intent was to kill him. Anthony Jenkins' attorney, Willis Coffey, denied that, saying it was a plan to buy drugs that went wrong.
Jurors did not comment after the decision was rendered, nor did federal prosecutors, The Associated Press reported.
Relatives of Anthony Jenkins wept, while Pennington made an audible sigh when the verdict was read, media reports said.
"You'd like to have an acquittal on all counts, but he's happy he was found not guilty of a hate crime," Coffey said, according to The AP. "So am I."
The cousins allegedly punched and kicked Pennington while yelling anti-gay slurs at him during the April 4, 2011 attack in Kingdom Come State Park, The Lexington Herald Leader reported. Defense attorneys argued the attack stemmed from drug and alcohol abuse, said the paper, but the prosecutor argued otherwise.
"This is not about drugs, this is about the fact that Kevin is gay," U.S. Justice Department civil rights attorney AeJean Cha told jurors, according to The AP.
Pennington described the attack after he escaped in a 911 call played by Assistant U.S. Attorney Hydee Hawkins.
"They're trying to kill me," Pennington said. "I didn't know what they were going to do. I think it's because I'm gay."
Coffey, the defense attorney for Anthony Jenkins, said his client -- who has an IQ of about 75 -- told the court on Wednesday that Jenkins never formulated a plan to attack or kill Pennington, and called the anti-gay allegations "the nearest thing to nothing I have ever seen," reported The AP.
The Jenkins were the first people prosecuted under part of the federal hate crime law that makes it a crime to hurt someone because of their perceived or real sexual orientation. The pair faces life in prison on the kidnapping charges when they are sentenced on Feb. 21, 2013.
In April, Anthony Jenkins’ wife -- Mable Ashley Jenkins, 19 -- and his sister, Alexis LeeAnn Jenkins, also 19 -– pleaded guilty to assisting the kidnapping and assault of Pennington because he is gay, the Justice Department said in a statement.
It was the first federal convictions nationwide for violating the sexual orientation provision of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Tranquilizer dart ends roaming days of Florida 'Mystery Monkey'
- Surprise intruder: 300-pound deer breaks into Philadelphia home
- Colo. wildfire forces hundreds to evacuate
- Kennedy nephew Michael Skakel denied parole in 1975 murder
- Teacher's aide suspended after role in '65 torture death
- Illinois hoarder ordered to get rid of hundreds of birds
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Ok, so the two women were convicted on a hate crime but the two men weren't? What gives? I realize it's a jury process, but you seriously have to wonder how two of four people are convicted of a hate crime but the other two aren't.
What was different about this trial that didn't make it a hate crime?
The women pled guilty. They were not convicted by a jury.
Missed that part first time around. Thank you.
So the 2 wives admitted that they kidnapped and beat Pennington because he was Gay, but the 2 husbands convinced the jury otherwise?
Could the jury be bias? In Kentucky?
If you call someone a fag, it's a hate crime, but if you call someone a beautiful fag, it's just pillow talk.
Steven...I live in Kentucky...this ruling doesn't surprise me. I've been called for jury duty...it's like being in a room with the cast of The Hills Have Eyes. Especially in that part of the state. What does surprise me is that the jury didn't convict the gay man for "hedonism" and sentence him to the rack. The melungians are nothing if not intolerant mouth breathers.
The gay man wasn't on trial, so it would be hard for the jury to convict the victim...although juries actually do do that far too often when they make the victim the criminal in their verdicts of "not guilty" of the accused.
An IQ of 75...? That makes him almost a Mensa candidate in Kentucky.
Hell, that makes him almost a Mensa candidate almost anywhere in the U.S.
An IQ of 75...? He must be a Democrat.
This is a good example of why our Federal Government is sick and out of control. They now prosecute local assault crimes where the states once had that right. Political correctness and thought control elevate this to where it is now more important than if the victim were a female.
Let's hope Romney and a GOP Congress roll back these thought control laws that elevate some of the same crimes more than others.
This is federal Court so the women pleading guilty of that charge does not mean they actually did it. The Feds scare the crap out of you. They want you to plead guilty so they will give you an option. Plead guilty to this charge and you will only serve a year of probation or take it trial and face life in prison. I know I have been through the process but with Marijuana. My choice was to plead guilty to conspiracy to distibute and do 3 years in prison or go to trial and face 27 years. I plead guilty.
Its because someone pleading guilty to something, does not make you guilty of the same thing.
Double post, please delete.
Like others have said--sort of mystifying that the two women pleaded guilty to the hate crime but somehow the men got off. I presume that the pleas of the two women were inadmissible at trial for fear of prejudice. But still--sounds pretty messed up.
At least they didn't manage to kill the guy.
Well,if you are going to try to beat someone to death it might as well be in Kingdom Come Park. Ohh,the irony!!!
.
IQ of nearly 75 ? Damn,he could could beat Mitwit or Obama in a game of chess.
That gave me a good laugh. A funny trend among the people I went to high school with was that the more educated people that went to college tended to be Democrats and conversely those class members on the other end of the spectrum that avoided an education often tend to be Republicans.
Zim123
A funny trend among the people I went to high school with was that the more educated people that went to college tended to be Republicans and conversely those class members on the other end of the spectrum that avoided an education often tend to be Democrats and Draft Dogers. The democrats seemed attracted to a free ride with the government handouts promoted by liberals.
& then the Democrats end up working for the Republicans or not at all.
i dont know this jury system is just like judges getting paid by private prisons or polticans. its obious the jury will pick thier own sytle. if a jury is white they will go white mans side, if jury is black they will go black mans side. if jury is not gay then they will go agaisnt the gay man. having a jury system is pointless. society is to discriminate. espcially down south.
Zim123
Clearly you demonstrate that intellectual part of society that is highly educated, so fix your own flipping car, house, yard, or anything else that breaks down. I have a few hundred technical manuals want to come and do some reading. Problem with libbies they are all special, heck I did not need four or five years to learn something. I did it all along on my own and the only thing I avoided is having to listen to the likes of you. Well worth it.
Like terrorism crimes? Murder is just murder right?
Gee how do they avoid all those "liberal" college professsors that the right wing always complains about? I guess if you go to France to convert Frenchmen to Mormonism, you're not a draft dodger. Which branch of the service did Dick Cheney serve in again?
Instead of relying upon stupid anecdotes, why not just look up political leanings by demographics:
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-detailed_tables/Detailed%20tables%20for%20Party%20ID.pdf
@Obama the great divider, #1.20, much as I agree with, and got some amusement from, your comment, the fact is education, or lack thereof, does not a Republican or Democrat make. Plus, evidence shows Obama never had a draft to dodge, but Mitt may have. Even if your experience is true, that's still one community over millions.
Back to the case at hand, rc-4121998 is at least partially correct, juries have biases as do ALL PEOPLE. Do you honestly think every gay or lesbian person accepts certain people for being transgender? It's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer, but it's still a fair question to ask. What about Tibetans with the general Chinese populace? I'm goin back to my junior year in high school when the Drama club put on The Odd Couple. One line in there suggests that the group goes out for Chinese food. Care to take a guess as to who delivered that line? Yea we got a couple nasty comments about that, but the director also said, "No matter what you do, someone, somewhere, is not going to like it. They may even hate it, and hate you for it as well."
The entire point of that rant is that there are going to be biases no matter where you go. So maybe it was a hate crime and maybe it wasn't, but the only people who really know have every reason to lie to protect themselves and to get a result they desire.
Unfortunately Mitt did NONE of that missionary work while in France..
for all of you that do not like the Matthew Shephard law think about this... you have a son who has an iq of 75 and he is in the park alone.. 2 ANTI GAY men kidnap and beat your son to within an inch of his life.. the reason they do all this is because your son is a bit feme, probably he spends most of his time with his mother..
do you believe in your heart that the court rulings should be different for your son because he is not gay..
Hate crime or not they will still be sentenced for the original crime.
I am for equality but I don't really understand the aspect of a hate crime. It seems to me any crime against another human where dis-like or general disregard of their victims humanity should be deemed a hate crime.
Question to Zim123 the alleged college something: Thus, where do we categorize or include all The Race=666=LaRaza ills aka illegals, illegitimates being welcome by the millions due to Open Borders USA as donated White House direct those US Seats in our USA's taxpaid Universities aka going to college via the DREAM ACT seated where our DEAD US MILITARY earned and never returned:as non contributing Invaders on the backs of diminishing working USCitizens of Generations of Taxpayers...
Sam-298381, you don't understand. Little Romney had to choose between missions into 2 communist countries: Vietnam or France. He chose the one that was actually the more dangerous. You cannot underestimate the danger of a country with national healthcare and free education. With all that stress, no wonder why he had to relax on a beach (although I'm sure that was also for him a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice that so many young American young men made on the same beaches in 1944).
Sam
" I guess if you go to France to convert Frenchmen to Mormonism, you're not a draft dodger. Which branch of the service did Dick Cheney serve in again?"
I guess if you go to England in the middle of a war to take some classes, you're not a draft dodger. Cheney served in the same branch as Obama.
I'm so glad we have special rights for these people now, instead of the equal rights they were asking for.
Where does the article state the women pleaded guilty to a hate crime?. It says they pleaded guilty to assault and kidnapping, not a hate crime. Anyone actually read the last paragraph. Hate crime laws are ridiculous anyway. People hate many different things and types of people, is every designation going to draw on this also, or just gays, blacks, mexicans.. So basically, unless you are white, you must be a victim of a hate crime. It can't possibly be that you are just an a-hole deserving of an azz kicking. Labels are ridiculous...
SSPerfectChaos
I never said Obama dodged the draft. Obama was too young for the war in Vietnam and he was living in Indonesia at the time.
Well it seems we still have some juries with intelligence. This whole hate crime BS is stupid. There are already plenty of laws on the books without piling on for special groups. Ever heard of a black or gay person being charged with a hate crime against a white or straight person?
Johnnonthespot...
I'm not the one who brought up "draft dodger". Just responding to one of your buddies.
Sounds like the 75 IQ was the combined IQ of both cousins together.
Some of you don't get out much - there are signs on public buses now telling women how to report any kind of harassment. So all you guys who can't walk past a woman without making some kind of animal grunt - you could find your self in front of a Judge.
A gal at work (this is 15 years ago) had a sign in her office that read; sexual harassment won't be reported - but it will be graded.
Did you know that if you walk by a woman and rattle the change in your pocket - that is sexual harassment. Personally I like these little challenges of ones self control - I see examples of failed self control here every day...lol.
If you kidnap a person and call them by anti gay slurs as you beat them senseless,then it is a hate crime.This case seems simple to me but who knows what morals this judge in Kentucky lives by.
Maxgiver - The gay guy that got beat up did not have the low IQ of 75. One of the guys who beat him had the 75 IQ . Read the story again.
Here's a nice nonsequitur for you. I’m a “libbie” that can fix my own car, house, yard and most anything else that breaks down and I have a college degree. Do you really think someone with a degree can't do those things because they have a degree? Yeah, you probably do. The difference is I can do all those things and I can factor polynomial equations if the need arises.
Oh and you seem kind of proud of your “technical manuals”. I can guarantee you the people who wrote those are educated. And you might be surprised to find that many people with college degrees also have “hundreds” of technical manuals. I found out a long time ago I can just read a tech manual and fix things as well or better than most of the "non-intellectuals" I have hired along the way. A lot of times I end up helping them with problems they run into and can't solve. Sometimes I've kept them from making big mistakes.
Here’s anothern onsequitur for you. I have a concealed carry license and believe in gun rights. Yet I would simplistically be classified a "lib-tard" (which I find a hilarious label) because I support the President. Time and again my "conservative" friends send me anti-Obama propaganda that always turns out to be false. How do I know? Unlike them I learned to do some research before passing along the latest “Obumer” crap-mail.
Here's one example. I was sent one claiming President Obama has signed over 900 executive orders and was abusing EO's to declare "martial law". The same email listed a bunch of EO's he supposedly signed. With some simple on-line research (National Archives) I found he's actually signed less than 140, and that's less than any President since FDR. And the kicker was that none of the EO's cited was signed by President Obama. NONE! And those were "the proof".
Of curious note was that the email repeatedly said "look it up" and "Google it" if you don't believe it. And you know what? You non-degree conservative "smart" right wingers didn't. You just forwarded the email on to your friends as "proof" of how bad Obama is. Hilarious, isn't it? What you really prove is you believe lies, time and time again, without checking the facts. Some Internet troll throws you bait and you go for it every time.
So you want to berate "libbies" with a college education and continue to pass along idiotic beliefs? Go ahead. For people who recognize irrational bias, you are demonstrating exactly why an education is important and why it’s no surprise that what you probably consider to be "liberal states" as a whole continually out-perform backward conservative states in education, wellness and productivity.
Let me help you with that. The article had this link . I’ll quote and high-light the important parts.
An IQ of 75...? He must be a Liberal Democrat Obama supporter.
SPrDg,My college degree sister who can fix everything is voting for Romney.A person's education has nothing to do with their political views. This article,which I've read very carefully,is indeed a hate crime.
Obama the great divider
An IQ of 75...? He must be a Liberal Democrat Obama supporter
yeah, cause the party that is most closely associated with bigotry and hate is the democratic party. since i know you probably won't get it, the previous line was sarcasm. you're helping to substantiate the idea that republicans are the dumb ones so please keep posting.
I assumed at first when it mentioned a sister and a wife that, this being Kentucky, that might only be one person.
That or an obama family member. After all, one of Grandad obama's dream was about his daughter.
PROUDAMERICANVETERAN, to call you a SH() for brains would be giving you too much credit!
Dammit, Captain Hammers - I wanted to post that, but you beat me to it.
Oh you Kentucky Haters...Damn that thing about the sister and wife was funny...but we should not be making fun of Kentucky, there are lots of great things about Kentucky.
our Flag is unravelled today by your comments PROUDAMERICANVETERAN.
I admit, I thought the same thing. You just can't really escape it. I actually lived across the street from a couple years ago who were from KY that it was rumored they were first cousins and married, they had something like seven kids.
I'm a Kentucky native and used to be proud of that state. My family was living in that state before it was a state! But, it has gone completely over to the Dark Side, as evidenced by its election of Rand Paul as a senator. It deserves every joke made about it.
It's Kentucky one of those homophobic states that's pretty damned backward so of course they wouldn't convict someone of a hate crime like this. Just look at the antigay crap their state legislature has been pushing through.
Actually, I need something explained to me. It is illegal to kidnap and assault anyone. Why is it more illegal due to any given motivation? Are you more assualted if I do it because you are gay, black, straight, or white than if I do it because you are rich and I'm stealing your money? Or, because you looked at me funny? Or, because I mistook you for someone else?
Oh my... Sandy, your talking about KY and you live in Missouri???? Have you driven through your state? That is hilarious!!
@Katy
So, while I'm punching and kicking you, what would have a bigger effect on your psyche, me yelling, "Your rich and successfulness makes me sick," or, "The color of your skin disgusts me." But you know, with more expletives and racial slurs. Depending on the reason of the kidnapping and assault, the damage to the victim could be greater, thus the heavier punishment.
Honestly, if you're punching and kicking me, I'm going to care a lot more about the physical damage than my psyche. And, I don't know. Actually you yelling at me for being rich might make me feel worse as I might feel I may have harmed you in some way through my riches. You may be able to convince me I deserved this treatment based on something I did. I certainly wouldn't worry about what anyone thinks of my skin color, or my religion, or my sexual orientation (unless they try to change it through rape, but then we're introducing another crime and this argument no longer applies). If you're beating anyone for any of those reasons, you're an ignorant bigot, and your thoughts shouldn't bother anyone in the least, because they're worthless. The kicks and the punches on the other hand...
Just more pandering to special intrest & minorities. If I shoot someone & it's not an accident, you can be pretty much assured it's because I hate them. I would never shoot someone just because I like them. A guy would run out of friends & family pretty quick.
Katy M, you're 100% right. But that's our politically correct society at work. Basically, you're being punished for speech. If I don't like someone's race, etc. and I beat them up, BUT KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT, it's not a "hate crime". And what's a hate crime, anyway? If I beat someone, it's not because I love them - well, maybe sometimes.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me."
According to a CNN state poll in Missouri - the #1 most commonly asked question by the children of divorcing parents in Missouri is:
If mommy and daddy get divorced...will they still be brother and sister??
Boom!
I'm sure I'm guilty of a hate crime there - oh well...
Katy, we differentiate crimes all the time based upon motivation. You sleep with my wife and I kill you in a fit of passion and it's manslaughter. Even if I hack you to pieces using a dull ax.
In contrast, if I pre-meditated and killed you with an overdose of morphine (painless) it's 1st degree murder. The result is the same (death, an arguably the death by dull ax is worse) and yet the punishment differs dramatically.
All crimes require some intent element. Society has just deemed that targeting someone because they belong to a particular class of people is especially abhorrent.
If you kill someone, why is it more illegal because your motivation was Islamic Jihad? Are you more dead because you are an infidel than you would be because I didn't want any witnesses to a robbery?
Let me try - If you shoot someone because you hate them as a person or you were hired to because someone hated them, that's one thing. But, to shoot someone just because they are a person of color or gay, that constitutes a hate crime.
EngEsq- One is motivated by extreme anger and "the heat of passion" meaning its done rather immediatly, due to that rage. Plotting a murder given the time to cool off and come to your rational senses is entirely different.
Let's hope that they do get the life sentences for the kidnapping at least...and then get raped in the process, hehe. They will then know what their hatred led to.
What one sows, so shall they reap! Can't escape that one.
That is right. I read the link to the ladies' plea agreements and it appears they will be sentenced as accessories under the Hate Crimes law, and also face up to life sentences for their part. The men were lucky the jury didn't include the hate portion of the law, but will still face the kidnapping life sentence. We can only hope the judge throws the book at them in the sentencing hearing. What I don't understand is why wait so long for the sentencing... April 2013 for the men, and the women were supposed to be sentenced in August. I have to wonder what their sentences turned out to be.
Yet people do on a daily basis...imagine that.
We don't need a special category of "hate crime" based on motivations of a perpetrator that is already convictable and punishable based on the crime itself.
[ Especially not based on sexual orientation, which is just another attempt to turn sexual orientation (a self-identifying trait, let's remember) into a race-like protection and power class. ]
Since sexual orientation is NOT a choice, just like race, ethnicity, etc. are not choices any more that blue eyes, blond hair, left-handedness, etc, why should it not also be included in the Hate Crimes laws? The hate crimes laws were passed because of the hatred involved in those very motivations that led to the crime.
People like you are why we have hate crimes laws.
no we have hate crime laws because of the PC, Liberal Agenda.
I dont care if they are gay, straight, black, white, yellow, or brown..
Kidnapping is Kidnapping.
Murder is Murder
Rape is Rape
Trying to say that one Offender should be tried different cause of " hate" is about as insane as the idiot who did the crime.
you cannot quantify hate. Because someone thinks the gay lifestyle is wrong, does not equal hate. ( no matter what the liberal left wants to tell you ) Try them on the quantifiable merits of the crime, Feelings should NEVER be brought into play in a trial of facts.
You're right. Someone who thinks the gay lifestyle is wrong is not necessarily guilty of hate.
However, when someone kidnaps a gay person and then physically assaults them, for no other reason than the fact that the person is gay, I think that it is safe to say that hate is a factor.
So you disagree with laws which have higher penalties for murder when the intent is terrorism?
Do you also disagree with the distinction between murder and manslaughter? In both cases the victim is equally dead.
Just an FYI, the state of mind and intent of the perpetrator have always been a part of our criminal law and the basis for graduated penalties.
But Kev, the "factor" is irrelevant. The crime is all that matters. Physical assault is physical assault no matter what. If I punch a guy because he pushed me, then I must hate guys that push me (which I do). It's a crime no matter the motive. A crime is a crime. Kidnapping is still kidnapping regardless of the sexual orientation of the person kidnapped. Murder is still murder. I don't know how we have gotten so confused on this. If I kidnap a person for ransom, then I must hate rich people, but I'm still going to get convicted of kidnapping regardless of my motives. Basically the whole thing is just stupid.
I am still not sure why we have to have a specific "hate" crimes addition. It doesn't matter what your race or sexual orientation is, assault is assault. I work in Wyoming and everyone here knows while being wrong to do, Matthew Shepherd was killed in a drug deal gone bad. But whether it was done because he burned some drug dealers, or because he was gay is wrong.
And I'm not sure how you don't know that motive and intent are the primary factors in sentencing for murder.
So, does that mean it's OK, or at the very least less wrong, to kill your rich uncle for the inheritance? Or, is it less wrong to kill someone because they have kids and you don't and you want the kids for yourself? Would that be considered a love crime and OK? Is it less wrong to kill someone because they witnessed you committing another crime?
skrekk--
But there is a very valid distinction that you are missing in your analysis. The difference between manslaughter and murder is the intent to commit a crime. In latin, mens rea, or guilty mind. Manslaughter is a crime where one did not set out to kill, but rather their actions, through recklessness or depraved indifference, resulted in death. It's for crimes like barfights that get out hand, reckless driving, that sort of thing. Spur of the moment (or, in legal language, "heat of the moment") bad decision which result in death. Flipping out because a man grabs your wife's ass in a bar.
Murder, or homocide, depending on your jurisdiction, involves an intent, malicious aforethought, to the crime. One sets out with a plan and intention to kill. Whether the motive was to kill a cheating spouse, kill a guy who informed to cops on a drug deal, or some sick serial-killer fetish killing, those are all charged as the same crime subject to the same sentencing guidelines.
The state of mind our criminal law is based on the level of intent, not the state of mind or feelings towards the victim of the crime. What hate crimes do is create separate categories of victims and say that crimes against them are worse than other crimes. But if you flip out and beat a man to death for grabbing your wife's ass in a bar, why is that less of a crime than flipping out and beating him to death for grabbing your ass in a bar? The state of mind in both crimes is the same--an irrationally violent but spontaneous response to an affront to perceived honor or sexual integrity, leading to the same result. Same for forming a plan to kipnap and kill an informant or someone who is gay--state of mind and outcome are the same, but one victim just happens to be in a protected class.
Incidentally, you misstate the laws on terrorism having higher penalties than other forms of murder. Murder as a federal crime includes life without parole and death as penalties, as does terrorism. The reason for terrorism laws is establish federal jurisdiction over certain murders. Federal prosecutors can't just grab any old murder and try it. If, say, a group of people shoot up shoppers in a mall, it would normally be a state level crime, subject to penalties in that state for murder, which may or may not include death. A mall is not federal property, none of the victims were federal employees doing their federal jobs at the time of the shooting, no nexus for federal jurisdiction. But add a few statements about jihad, or Waco and Ruby Ridge, and some money tracing back to some suspect organizations, and the feds can jump in to and take over the prosecution as a violation of the terrorism laws.
But it's the parity in sentencing between hate crimes and non-hate crimes that show the ultimate problem with hate crimes. In this case, the defendants still face a life sentence, even without the hate crime conviction. Whether they were convicted of it is irrelevant, and serves only to grab headlines and prejudice the jury. The jury can't extend their sentence beyond life, but the prosecutor hopes that drilling the hate aspect of the crime over and over again, by making it a separate charge, they can spend more time talking about what horrible human beings the defendants are and increase the odds of conviction by having emotion over-rule evidence.
If you don't like that example then let's compare 1st and 2nd degree murder, where both are intentional killings yet receive different sentences based on whether the murder was premeditated.
I think what you're forgetting is that hate crimes penalty enhancers are meant to address a larger issue of terrorism against communities of people, and the historic pattern of bigoted juries failing to convict domestic terrorists (like the KKK) of very serious crimes when the victim is a member of a disfavored minority.
And that's part of my point.
Do you think this should apply to Islamic terrorists?
I hate to tell you this, but intent and motivation are essentially the same. I can damn well mean to kill somebody, but my motivation determines if it was self defense or 1st degree murder.
Secondly, intent for a hate crime needs to indicate the person was targeted for being part of the protected class. Killing a gay person who is an informant is not a hate crime. Killing him because he is gay is. See, different intent.
Skrekk--
If you don't like that example then let's compare 1st and 2nd degree murder, where both are intentional killings yet receive different sentences based on whether the murder was premeditated
First, let's point that that not all states use the same classification for homocides, so the terms separating 1st/2nd homocide and manslaughter are somewhat fungible depending on the jurisdiction you are used to talking about them in. But distinction I addressed above is valid, and your bringing in a different category of murder doesn't change the fact that state of mind, as it relates to sentencing severity, are solely about to what extent you intended to kill someone, or whatever crime you committed, not about your motive for that intent. Premeditated intent is one category of punishment, spontaneous intent another, and no intent but happened anyway due to recklessness is a yet another. Motive matters solely as part of the evidential triumverate--"means, motive, and opportunity" but not as separate categories of criminal punishment as legislated.
I think what you're forgetting is that hate crimes penalty enhancers are meant to address a larger issue of terrorism against communities of people, and the historic pattern of bigoted juries failing to convict domestic terrorists (like the KKK) of very serious crimes when the victim is a member of a disfavored minority.
I think what you're confusing is federal civil rights legislation and related prosecutions during the 60s with more recently enacted hate crimes statutes. The former did exist as a curative for allowing prosecution at federal level after local juries failed to convict, and they skirted double jeopardy restrictions by not, technically, prosecuting for assault, but rather establishing that crime was committed in response to activities related to the exercise of civil rights, such as voting, entry in to formerlly segregated spaces, etc. They were not a blanket charge available for any white on black crime where hateful words were uttered, but only limited to ones with such a link.
As this article notes, federal hate crimes statutes are a relatively new creature, one that, again, as noted, have yet to result in an actual conviction. Further, if they were applied after a state level acquittal for a murder, as they are currently written it would constitute double jeopardy, because they require conviction on an underlying criminal act.
As to establishing federal jurisdiction in terrorism case, I think you're changing what your original point was. You argued that the roled of federal terrorism laws was enhanced sentencing, which I pointed out wasn't the case, as murder for terrorism and murder have the same sentencing. A jurisdictional change is moot.
skrekk
We aren't talking about "graduated penalties" here. This is about someone being charged with an additional crime at the Federal level due solely to the motivation they used to commit a crime.
Murder1 vs murder2 is about charging someone with one crime or the other. You don't charge someone with murder1 and then tack on a murder2 charge because it was premeditated.
This is unprecedented in our legal system, there is no comparison.
It's a separate charge but it doesn't exist without the underlying crime, and the way it's implemented is as a penalty enhancer.
Unprecedented? How so? We've had federal hate crimes laws since at least 1968.
EngEsq--
No, motive and intent are not the same thing.
Intent is what you were doing--were you planning and organizing a murder, were you unable to control yourself and flew in to a rage, or were you simply reckless in your behavior, to the point that you should have known someone would wind up dead?
Motive is why you were doing it--were you planning the murder as revenge, as part of a criminal enterprise, or because you didn't like the victim's group identity? Were you in rage because the guy spilled a drink on you, or because he made a pass? Were you reckless because you were drunk, or because you didn't think that members of this group really counted and deserved caution?
As far as self-defense goes, sure, that is a motive (a why) that matters, but the jury is not asked to judge what was in your heart as you used lethal self-defense. They are asked whether you were reasonable, given the facts of your assailant and the options available to you, in possessing a motive of self-defense for the use of lethal force
and this paragraph is not an argument:
Secondly, intent for a hate crime needs to indicate the person was targeted for being part of the protected class. Killing a gay person who is an informant is not a hate crime. Killing him because he is gay is. See, different intent.
It's simply a tautology. Yes, hate crimes involving a protected class, and they say that that intent makes it greater crime to kill them. Which, by logical reasoning, says it's less of a crime to kill an informant.
No, it simply means that the penalty is graduated based on why you're killing the informant.
And note that while everybody is a member of the same protected classes, the actual class instance identity of the victim is irrelevant. It's only the intent of the perp to target a protected class that matters.
It was a Kentucky jury. Hate and homophobia are part of their culture. I am only surprised they did not let them off scot free. It is impossible to get justice in the South.
They were convicted of assault and sentenced. Just because the victim has an abnormality does not mean they beat hm because of it. Being gay does not mean you can be innocent of every crime either. Drug deal gone wrong. Maybe gays shouldn't deal in drugs?
The defendants only claimed that it was a drug deal gone wrong, there was no evidence of a drug deal. The women involved testified and pled guilty to the fact that they kidnapped him because he was gay. Maybe you shouldn't blame the victim.
The victim has "an abnormality"....??? You should change your sign-on to "proudamericanbigotwhojusthappenstoalsobeaveteran." Your veteran status does NOT trump your bigotry.
Biologically, the gave lifestyle is abnormal. even Darwin would agree. So get over yourself. You are the one asking for special treatment, obiously then you fell you are different.
Uh, no, Darwin would not agree with you. The same percentage of wildlife is homosexual as in the human population, an average of 18%. It's part of the natural order. Why? We don't know the reason, but it may have something to do with helping human young survive. Aunts and uncles who don't have their own children can help nieces and nephews by hunting and gathering food for them. Imagine that.
Darwin was a scientist. He observed nature. He did not look to it for reasons to support hatred and bigotry. It's clear you know little about the man.
The victim clearly has a abnormal sexual orientation. He shouldn't be attacked for this he should be given some mental help.
Simply having an opinion different from yours does not automatically make one a bigot. For instance; I don't believe in "born that way". I believe it's a choice, but that doesn't mean I hate gays. Labeling someone as a "bigot" for having a differing opinion is actually more akin to bigotry than what you are calling bigotry.
The great divider, you should get some mental help. You're an arse.
Wow--a homophobe with an avatar of the President in a Turban. Never would have guessed a homophobe would have a problem with the current president. Who'd a-thunk it?
And "arguesforsport." It's a choice? So you chose to be straight?
Great! Another story about some losers from Kentucky to make the rest of us look bad.
News flash for those of you who stereotype Kentucky based on some ignorant beliefs you have (although you have never been to our beautiful state or met any of the wonderful people here), things like this happen all the time in other states!
And, no, I was not born in Kentucky but I love the state!
Gary Rath, apparently you didn't read the story. "it is impossible to get justice in the south". BULL$HIT, the odds seem pretty good to me that these men are going to be sentenced to some very long sentences,if not a life sentence just for beating the crap out of someone. Whether or not he is gay, according to the jury,is irrelevent. If THAT isn't justice, I don't know what is.
Obama the great divider, you biggoted, idiot, a$$hole, being gay isn't an "abnormal" sexual orientation. Alternative,yes. There is NO KIND of abnormal sexual orientation. There isn't any kind of mental help to deal with this. It can't be cured by weekly visits to a psychologist (most of whom are more twisted than their patients) any more than a broken leg can be cured by weekly visits to a physician. If it is going to "heal", it is up to the patient to treat himself just like it up to his body to heal the broken leg. Follow that? Or is it too complicated for your 75 IQ brain to comprehend?
gary rath
You must be some rude Yankee or California freak. This thinking of southerners as inbred is stupid. It was the Yankee's that practiced genocide on the native Americans. Talk about hate.
Your right to hate southerners is as equal as my right to hate anyone else. Yes I'm a southerner and I married a Yankee. My parents were not blood related but married before having children.
Talk about hater's folks in CA hate anyone in the military yet tolerate military bases and the revenue they put in their pockets. I was stationed there over two years in the Marines.
Unless you have lived in the south yours is an ignorant view of southerners. I have yet to meet an inbred southerner. I've lived in the south most of my life. IQ does not make you stupid. Making ignorant statements make you stupid. Yes if you missed it I called you stupid.
Got to agree with arguesforsport. This country has fallen way too deep into this pool of PC crap. Sick of people calling others bigots racist etc.. for having opinons and beliefs that differ from theirs. Seems to me that if we were intended to be bi-sexual or gay we'd have been given all the appropriate parts. Basically men and womens sexual organs were created to fit together to procreate.
sprintcarpilot
Homosexuality is definitely Abnormal. A man sticking his Knob into another mans hairy arse is definitely abnormal to say the least. I don't hate your kind. I pity you. Disagreeing with an abnormal lifestyle doesn't constitute bigotry. Get some help with your anger and name calling.
Obama the great divider,
so *you* think homosexuality is abnormal.. you disagree with it.. that's fine and dandy, you are allowed to do that.. you think a man sticking his "knob" into another man's hairy arse is definitely abnormal...
so, is it abnormal for a heterosexual man to stick his "knob" into a woman's arse ? because, in reality, many heterosexual men enjoy that act with their wives/girlfriends/one night stands ... and you can't tell me they don't.. i know a couple that do
so is that abnormal too ? do you pity those heterosexual guys too ?
because if its cool for the heterosexual guys to do it, then you become intolerant of the homosexual guys doing it ... and intolerance to homosexuals is displaying BIGOTRY ! (look up the definition of bigotry, its true)
so tell me.. what are your thoughts ? if you think that its not so cool for the heterosexual guys to do it.. then you aren't necessarily displaying bigotry towards homosexuals
I personally don't believe that any anal sex is appropriate. The rectum was not designed to be a sexual organ. A vagina was. THe anus's purpose is to evacuate bowel movements period.
Sprintcarpilot; so by your logic, necrophilia is normal or sex with children, or with animals. Because "there is NO KIND of abnormal sexual orientation". As you believe homosexuals are born that way and not a choice. So maybe that can be said of those that I mentioned prior; it is their sexual orientation. That is who and what they normally want to their sexual orientation defined.
Abnormal definition; unusual: unusual or unexpected, especially in a way that causes alarm or anxiety, not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard normal behavior.
Normal definition: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle, occurring naturally, free from mental disorder.
Phoenyx13
It is abnormal for humans because if the whole human race decided to be butt_plugge_s and crotch licke_s then that would be the end of the human race. We would last for ONE generation. End of story.
Lovetherain, necrophilia and pedophilia are not sexual orientations; they are paraphilias, and as such, are mental disorders.
BTW, you seem to have no clue about what "legal consent" means.
Obama the great: homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed -- and here we all are, countless generations later.
End of story.
theexecutioner
You need some help Fagg_t lover. Why don't you go hang out in the mens wash room.
There's no accounting for taste. I was born there, as were many generations of my ancestors back to the 1700's. But, it's bible-thumping, anti-gay attitudes just got to me. Luckily, I left long before Rand Paul was elected senator, the ultimate humiliation. Now, when people ask where I'm from, I change the subject and tell them that I outsource jobs to China for Bain Capital. It is less embarrassing.
LOL, Barry!
You are a pompous poster. Stereotyping and hyperbole are part of your culture. I am only surprised you did not wish death on all Southerners. It is impossible to get a reasoned comment from gary rath.
Truth hurts doesn't it ap-2718492 and that is why you are lashing out at Gary.
Sandy.. next time you post truth.. without your far left bias, please let us know.
The cousins allegedly punched and kicked Pennington while yelling anti-gay slurs at him during the April 4, 2011 attack in Kingdom Come State Park.
That's the definition of a hate crime in about 48 of the 50 states. But apparently not to a mouth-breathing Kentucky jury that probably had uniformly red necks.
Yep and the two black teenage punks who beat a thirteen year old and set him on fire outside his own was not a hate crime either, at least of course to Eric "Black Power" Holder.
I think the beating part makes it a hate crime. It shouldn't get a harsher punishment because they yell certain insults at the person while they beat him.
What would an Anti-Gay slur be ? Maybe saying something that is probably true? Please give me an example of an Anti-Gay slur. No need to use fowl language.
I'd agree with proudamericanveteran. Why is it that no matter what happens whites can NOT be victims of hate crimes. When blacks take a white kid, set them on fire and let them burn to death that is HATE!!!! How about all the crimes committed in the name of Trayvon Martin??? Those victims did nothing wrong at all except NOT be balck!!!! Over the last few years there have numerous accounts of blacks atacking and even murdering whites without ANY of them being charged with hate crimes. I don't think there are that many things that people say about gays that are any worse than alot of the nasty things people have been saying about Romney and Ryan this election cycle. But I guess that's OK since they're white. Right??
They were convicted of their real crimes so the jury did its job. If you're kidnapped and beaten it shouldn't be considered a lesser crime that it was done for money instead of your race, religion or sexual orientation.
If the only reason the victim was attacked was because of their difference then it is a hate crime. If another criminal activity is involved the it is simply a crime. Get over yourselves.
The defendants didn't provide any evidence of a drug deal, and their wives testified against them and said that the motive was anti-gay bias.
What does 'get over yourself' mean?
The defendants don't have to prove there was a drug deal. The prosecution has to prove that they beat him because he was gay. They proved that he was gay (I assume), they proved that the defendants beat him. They didn't prove causality. Maybe they beat him because they just like beating people up. Apparently that's acceptable.
Skrekk--
The wives accepted a plea deal to lessen their sentences in exchange for testimony. If a defense attorney offered a witness so much as a stick of gum in exchange for his testimony, the witness's testimony would be stricken from the record and the law would consider the payment proof positive that what was said was untruth, and the defense attorney would, at minimum, be held in contempt and would face bar discipline as well.
But for some reason, prosecutors can offer people years of their lives back, and we never question whether a witness is being less than truthful in order to receive that payment.
It's worth noting that while the federal laws on witness tampering simply say that it's unlawful for an attorney to offer something of value to a witness in exchange for testimony, the Supreme Court has said that that rule doesn't apply to prosecutors. . . . .
Katy--no, kidnapping and beating people simply because you enjoy it is no more acceptable than because they are gay, and the jury said so by convicting them of a crime for which they could spend the rest of their lives in jail. The hate crime charge was superflous and solely a means to grab headlines.
A prosecutor can use the victim's sexual orientation to establish motive, and address the bigotry of the perpetrators, without requiring an extra category of crime to charge which does nothing to enhance the sentence. But what it does allow is greater opportunity to call witnesses to the stand that, while not witnesses to actual kidnapping and assault, can testify to the fact that the defendants are unlikeable, bigotted wastes of skin in the hopes that jury will use that unlikeability to overcome any doubts about the evidence during deliberation.
For the record, I am not saying there were doubts about the evidence here. I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to say that there should have been. Simply that the role that hate crimes charges play is largely to inflame juror passions and thus compromise their analytical ability rather than to add more punishment to a crime.
If there is no such thing as a hate crime, then there is no such thing as terrorism.
Does motivation matter, or not?
Sam,
Terrorism is a goal oriented crime, it is a crime but A goal is different from A reason / motive.
Think if it this way, if a guy blows himself up in a theater known to be filled with Jews he there to instill fear in theater goers (i.e Terror) he may not be 'anti Semitic' (he may be) but, he is not just trying to kills Jews but also sow fear.
It really is apples and oranges, the crime of murder may be constant but it is the goal of sowing fear that makes it a true terror attack, the motivation for the target will vary, A theater may just be an easier target then an army barracks.
Do not be confused by the government reports or what the news shows. Nowadays it is all lumped together, in today's parlance a member of a terror group commits terrorism but, in reality the goal is what separates a terrorist from a murder.
Chris, your argument is ridiculous. "Goal Oriented"?
The argument is the same. It doesn't matter what the criminal was thinking. You're punishing the crime, right. Murder is murder and should have the same punishment, no matter the motive.
I could argue that the goal of gay beaters is to instill fear in gays. Clearly, it is.
Sam your original concept was silly and ignorant and you really ought to have known better little buddy. You MIGHT be able to argue that a 'gay only' killer was a terrorist as he is trying to instill terror in the gay community but, come on pal, think a little bit.
Whatever will make it easier for you to understand but Yes, what is the Goal?? so Goal Orientated. I am sorry if you are not able to grasp that but as with much in America these days we have stupefied everything so the smallest minds can understand and over time the value of words diminish. I may have dumb-ed it down too much for you (or maybe not enough) but, the concept stands.
Murder is the act, it does not change between straight up murder and terrorism, that part you have correct. What separates a crime (murder) for any 'reason' or motive and Terrorism is that Terrorism is more, often politically motivated but, often just to throw a community out of balance and make them wary, perhaps even as a means to an end, i.e release of political prisoners or other terrorists.
A Hillbilly killing a gay guy is just one A hole killing another, terrorism is significantly different.
So yes, murder is murder but Terrorism is a step up, a different type of crime altogether, it is more then simply a murder where we disapprove of the killers motives, and it is generally on a larger scale.
Actually it's the exact same sort of terrorism the KKK committed, assuming the motive was homophobia.
Don't drop the soap guys.
Anthony Jenkins has an IQ of 75 and a 19-year old wife? He's allowed to marry and most likely reproduce, that is a scary thought!
Actually that's a sign of social progress, although oddly enough Kentucky was one of the few states which never passed a eugenics law.
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/KY/KY.html
Allowed? What are you suggesting?
The 'reasons' should never matter, kidnapping is kidnapping we do not allow that. Murder is murder we do not allow that. No reason a person on trial committed a crime matters (unless in an attempt to justify self defense).
We simply create hatred and division by making special laws. It does not matter if the victim is gay or the perps think he is, we simply do not tolerate kidnapping and so regardless of WHY they tried to kidnap the guy, they will go to Jail for kidnapping. Good call by the KY jury.
ATTENTION: If you plan on beating a homosexual person. NEVER yell out or say any anti homosexual slurs. While you are beating them, make up some crap about how they owe you money, or you don't like their haircut ect.. Or better yet, yell out loud "How dare you say that about my Mother!" And make sure anyone around you hears it. Or yell over and over again: "Don't call me a F— _!"
That way prosecutors will just have to treat it like a normal assult.
hahahhah Reginald
Look up Matthew Sheppard and or James Byrd and you can see why the hate crimes bill was passed.
If you decide to commit Jihad, never yell, "Allah is great"
Then it's just a murder, correct?
I am ware of both of those cases. The problem I have with making up 'hate crimes' is that you are saying it is MORE wrong to kill some one / do something due to what the perpetrator may have been thinking at the time, which is strictly an assumption, then to just kill some one for a thrill, for money, out of rage what have you.
It is not, either something is wrong or it is not, the 'WHY' does not make it More wrong. Adding more time to a sentence due to a special status of the Victim is a horrible way to run a 'justice' system.
Example, if a person kills someone for money (hit man) he/she is just doing a job, they will likely not care about the victim in anyway, a good hit man will be emotionless. Does that mean a hit man is not as bad as these guys?? No, why, because killing is wrong, Period, nothing else matters....
ummmm. "the reasons should never matter".....unless the reason is a "goal", correct?
LOL.
And a pat on the head for Sam. Nice try little buddy
Once you are capable of understanding the difference between trying to accomplish a goal and simply being a hater you may be educable.
The end result / what do you hope to accomplish / what are you trying to get out of the act. Simply killing someone is not the same as terrorism Sammy, no matter how you think / feel about the victim....
Hate is wrong regardless of the reason. When you want to punish someone more seriously because it is homosexuality they hate, you trivialize all the other crimes done based on hate.
"We want to be equal, but treated differently..." DOES NOT WORK!!!
That must make sense in your head....but not in the real world.
McRob, the hate crime would be the exact same if the assailants were beating the victim because they thought he was straight.
The protected class is "sexual orientation", not "homosexuality." The same is true for other protected classes like "religion" even though it was primarily Catholics who were persecuted by the KKK for their religion.
@McRob
You're hitting the nail right on the head. The so called minority groups would like to be treated like everybody else but they all want some clause or special rule that make them stand out from society, like they are somehow better or society should for whatever reason be more sensitive towards their feelings.
Incoherent argument.
Forget your attention deficit disorder medicine this morning?
Sam, since you don't seem to understand simple English, let me clarify.
Should a person who kills someone because he hates the kind of clothes they wear be treated more gently than a person who kills someone because of their sexual preference? Hate is wrong no matter what the reason, and to classify some crime more sever than others because we want to be more sensitive to a particular group of people is wrong. ALL hate crime should be punished severely, not just those for people who protest that they want to be treated differently.
Skrekk, and if they punished them more severely because they hated him because he was straight, it would STILL be unfair to those who are victims of hate for other reasons.
I m glad they beat the hate crime charge....
What do you call homemade preserves in Kentucky?
KY jelly!
So...all gay people are drug dealers?? Since when?
Yeah, they all sell poppers
Samantha Turley
Most gay people are drug dealers. They trade drugs for sex. They often polish the Knob of Black drug dealers because they have no self esteem. How much self esteem could you have to let another man put his knob in your mouth? After they do their knob polishing, they get paid with drugs which they use to bargain with other homos to get their own knob polished.
Cite some proof of this, or STFU.
Saying the loser who attacked this guy has an IQ of 75, making it OK because he has an excuse IS AN INSULT to all the OTHER people who have IQs of 75 and go about their business WITHOUT ever attacking someone else. In my book, a loser is a loser, IQ of 75, IQ 0f 150, no money, lots of money, no job, good job. How about all the people who have nothing and not much of a chance who NEVER attack or hurt anyone. Lock these morons up for a few years.
Good, good. No hate crime here folks. We need to take sexual pre-verts off the so-called hate crimes list of victims, too, and rename the law anti-racism.
Sustained harassment and racial slurs toward an ethnic minority, can result in 1 year in prison. No provisions for men who pretend they're women or anything like that. They can just be covered under regular laws.
"men who pretend they're women"
..you mean like Ann Coulter?
"Hate crime" designation is a waste of time for all involved. The prosecutor wants a conviction, any conviction. It is much easier to prove who committed a crime, than it is to prove their motivation for committing the crime. "Hate crime" charges get dropped 99% of the time.
There is a scripture in the Bible, somewhere, that states, "As a man thinketh, so is he". Also, I believe that everything and everyone created began with a thought. So, if I judge someone to be gay or anything else, whether they are or not, I must think so first. Thus, in my mind, I first become that which I judge. Check that with yourself to verify.
what the jury was saying by the aquital was next next time call us so we can join in on the fun
@wilmbear
You limbs and Yankees feel so goddamn superior don't you?
One of the arresting officers had testified that Anthony Jenkins admitted the motive was anti-gay bias:
The two perps sound like typical bible-thumpers - low IQ violent members of the Christian Taliban.
@shrek
And what are you? Low IQ and member of the communist party?
Some situations niether make sense or can be adjudicated with an outcome of equal justice...here it is.
Wrapping my head around the fact that 2 girls AIDING AND ASSISTING in the crime of kidnapping plead guilty to doing it because of sexual orientation.
Wrapping my head around the idea that for the other 2...it was a drug deal gone bad.....but they kicked, beat, and kidnapped the guy using slurs about his sexuality.
Making it even more sad.....that an individual with an IQ of 75....is engaged in acquiring drugs and having a concept of homosexual slurs. We are talking a Forest Gump here...not a smart man, but should know right from wrong.
I have a sister who is measured at 65 IQ...brain damage due to lack of oxygen at birth. If you have any doubt about her knowledge of right/wrong and name calling.....call somebody a retard where she can hear you.....guarenteed she'll beat you down verbally.
With that IQ...I am not convinced conviction of a federal crime is the answer for him. But the others ought to be prosecuted to the fullest....and I think it is close akin to "contributing to the delinquency of a mental minor".
And now I'll be controversial....one of the girls, 19, is his wife. If his IQ is due to gentetic factors, I hope there is enough common sense to not have children. Technically, my sister's situation is not genetic,,,but as a family, we have a sister who is permanently about 12 years old. On permanent disability,,,,,it is OUR responsibility to care for her. Having a child would be to no one's benefit....besides...she would spoil the kid rotten.
The problem with premising a conviction on the selection of insults yelled during a beating is that, during a fight or beating, people tend to be really angry and are looking any way they can hurt their victim, including with words. People don't yell nice things to each other during fights. It doesn't mean that those selection of words yelled during the fight constitute the motive for the fight or a person's feelings towards a category of people. They are simply a reflection of insults chosen in a moment of anger.
Then let's use the statement one of the perps made to the arresting officer:
JUSTROSS: I agree that some people say things in anger they would not otherwise say.
It is usually true feelings they won't express when they're in control of their tongue. In your attempt to rationalize the behavior, you inadvertantly express:
1. Fighting and or beating someone down is an excuse for using hate lanuage. It is not.
2. I toally disagree with your thought:
a person has to BELIEVE the derogatory comment is hurtful to the person to use it. I think maybe you should look at your attitude about fighting and name calling being acceptable behavior for adults.
everyone is entitled to their own opinions.. Beating somone up is a crime but saying the FAG word last time i checked was not.. its a cruel world people r racist, mean, vicious.. but its ur right to say an feel how ever u want..
Tom--Nice try to shove words in my mouth, but that's simply not what I said, nor is it a reasonable inference from what I said. It's simply twisted logic to say I implied that fighting and naming calling are acceptable behavior for adults. Neither are things grown-ups should engage in.
But guess what: They do. And when they fight, the courts get involved, as they should, and sentence people to spend time in jail. But, while inappropriate, the courts generally do not get involved in people yelling names at each other.
I want, for second, however, to focus on the word you made sure to capitalize in your post: a person has to BELIEVE the comment is hurtful. What you are arguing for is criminalizing a belief. It's no longer good enough, in your world, to say that actions are crimes. It's what one BELIEVES that gets them in to trouble. I'm not a bigot. I support marriage equality. But I would not, for a single second, contemplate throwing someone in jail for BELIEVING that gays are lesser or not entitled to rights. But by your logic, anyone who expresses that belief, especially by voting against gay marriage, could be arrested for believing that.
I'm not cool with that world, and I think, if you really thought about it, you wouldn't be either.
Tom might not be aware of that fact but I am. That's why I've been arguing with you here, because you're usually on the right side.
The context of the discussion is that a criminal act of violence has been committed. The question is whether society has an interest in addressing the larger social context in which that violence occurs, where juries have been unwilling to convict when the targets of terrorism are members of certain disfavored groups.
I'm not cool with a world where local juries have historically refused to convict on crimes against gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc.
No guys, in simple english, it is not the BELIEF by itself. Calling someone a faggot IS free speech....as well as a demonstration of no class.
Believing that calling someone a faggot increases the pain you are causing as you kick the guys ass is simply an indication that, yes, part of the motive is sex orientation....which IS treated more seriously than an assault over a disagreement. Belief is not the criminal act...nor is the name calling in and of itself. Merely evidence that the beat down is for a motive that is a hate crime by law.
And the other half is no matter what....assault is never justified other than selfl-defense which is not the same as assault.
In your clarification, I have to admit a misunderstanding of your original post....I thought you were 'explaining away the use of hate lingo'. I think we pretty much agree, and sorry to offend.
It will be challenging getting this post past the censor-bot and still get my point across, but here goes:
Once someone has started committing assault, all they are trying to do is inflict pain, regardless of whether it reflects any sort of personal belief either about their victim specifically or about the victims identity generally. I doubt a guy yelling "mother-F----r" believes the guy he's hitting actually had relations with his own mother or his attacker's mother. Nor does yelling "bas---d" mean the guy thinks his victim is the result of unmarried parents, or "son of a b---h" mean the assailant actually thinks his victim's mom is either a female dog or simply an unpleasant woman. "c--k s--k-r," while referring to a homosexual act, at least when said to man, has also become an all-purpose insult for a lot of people.
These are all words that people yell at each other in anger, and sometimes during violence, because we've decided, as a society, that they are hateful, hurtful words. We place them in that category that polite, responsible grown-ups do not use. And the same goes for faggot. In spite of columnist Dan Savage's efforts to reclaim the word, it's not a word for polite or reasonable conversation.
Yes, M-Fer is an insult because we believe it's a bad thing to be, same for SOB, B----d, and C--------r, and yes, some people use faggot because they believe gay is a bad thing to be. But picking one hurtful word over others for a sentencing enhancement mandated by law would be like making a higher crime to kick someone in the groin than in the gut because we want to protect balls and have historically been the victim of mockery on America's Funniest Home Videos (sorry, a little snarky, I know). Both are assaults, and should be treated the same.
Why you believe you are being hurtful should not matter in the context of a crime. That you are being hurtful is what matters.
I'm sorry but I'm not shocked that a southern court did not find these them guilty- a lot of southern states are backwards and have too much history or being blatantly racist and discriminating. A lot of courts all over the states are all politics and tend to do a dis-service to victims.
You must hate southerners too.
ANDREA: a totally unfair generalization about southern states and their people.
There is much research which indicates that racism in northern cities is more subtle, but more intense than in the south.
And I do hope you realize your statement is a prejudice generalization....same thing you are pointing the finger about.
You must either b gay or an idiot.. *not u 2468
I can't defend the south, but in Texas all the large urban counties were blue in 2008. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso all went for Obama in 2008.
A lot of northerners are moving to the sunbelt (we have air conditioning now) and are turning Texas purple.
I won't try to defend the hillbillies in West Texas trailer parks.
LOL. As a native Texan, just let me say, "Come on down!" The libraries need the business.
lololol
Yeah, this is Kentucky, after all, where they love gay people, especially if they're dead.