The San Diego police have arrested three men – including two juveniles – on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon – with a hate crime enhancement – in the gay bashing incident referred to below. In a continuing spirit of deference to the legal system, I’ll attempt to withhold judgment while pointing out that none of this surprises all that much:
Court records show (the accused), who is being held in the downtown jail pending arraignment tomorrow, pleaded guilty to felony burglary in April in San Diego. He was sentenced to three years’ probation. He was convicted of a similar crime last year in Texas.
…
The three are part of a loose-knit group known as the ‚ÄúLowlifes,‚Äù Ball said. Police don’t know much about the group, which they said has about 50 members.
I asked the question in that “weekend” post whether we could tell to what degree these kinds of attacks are driven by bigotry, and to what extent they are driven by criminal sociopathy gone looking for a reason.
I think I’ve got my answer.
I have to agree with you, Lex.
I know people who are so disgusted by homosexuality they can barely bring themselves to allude to the topic. But at the same time they wouldn’t dream of seeking out and assaulting a homosexual as these people allegedly did.–they have an inherent morality that determines how they treat the rest of humanity.
Lowlifes!! What a great name.
I’m going to join a gang called “the procrastinators” one of these days.
Fbl – not all people who loathe homosexuality have the same moral restraint. Some are just hateful and can’t contain themselves to hurt that which they loathe. They don’t have that “inherent morality” to guide them. But Lex also makes a good point about the possibility that some are just sociopaths who have issues. Which in this case does sound more plausible that simple hatred for gays.
Jonboy, Thanks for the chuckle. I want to join the Procrastinators too, If they ever get around to having a meeting.
Jonboy: I have ALMOST gotten to the point where I have filled out my PC application, I am sure I will get to it 2morrow.
As far as hate crimes (IMHO) just enforce the law on what someone DOES, not on what they think..(Which I think is the Capt’s point) Hope I am not assuming wrongly !
I dont hate gay people, but I do hate little yap yap dogs and have begun to plot their eventual extermination
(shhhh)
Crime is crime what does it matter what they are thinking or in most cases not thinking?
Amen on the Yap Yap!!
Kris, I didn’t mean to imply that all people who loathe homosexuality had that kind of restraint. I was using them as an example to show that though there was a common thread of loathing, I was agreeing Lex in saying that there is a difference between that feeling and the desire to do someone harm.
To use an example of something I loathe: I have a often said that were the father of a certain friend ever in the same room with me and a weapon, he wouldn’t leave it alive. That’s only somewhat hyperbolic. However (to the extent I’ve sorted them out), my ethics don’t let me be comfortable with passing final judgement on him in that manner. I know that I couldn’t bring myself to kill him under those circumstances, despite the fact that I think he’s the vilest person it has ever been my misfortune to encounter (and among the vilest I’ve read about).
Now, though I firmly believe the father I referred to is a criminal and a homosexual is not a criminal, I think the feelings they inspire in some people are comparable. While I think I could make a pretty good argument for the father not deserving to live, I’m not a vigilante and I’m in control of my feelings of repulsion when it comes to him. On the other hand, someone who can plan an attack against someone simply because of personal disgust is not someone who values human life or recognizes the suffering of others… the very definition of a sociopath.
Oops. SHould be “…plan AND CARRY OUT an attack…”
Under California law, where multiple motives are present for a crime, the bias against the protected class that is prohibited under the hate crime statute must be a “substantial factor” in bringing about the crime. Proving specific bigotry rather than general thuggishness as a causative factor will rest on the state, if it decides to charge a hate crime.
According to the article, prosecutors haven’t charged the suspects yet. So at this moment, there probably is an assistant district attorney for the city of San Diego looking over what he/she has, thinking about what he/she can prove, and considering many of the same twisted aspects of human behavior that folks have commented on in these threads…
We are headed down a very dangerous path when we prosecute people for what they think; even if the thought is attached to a physical action. I wonder: Could one be brought up on charges for what they think if there is no physical action attached to the thought (and yes, I realize that that would be a very difficult, if not impossible thing to proove)? Really scary stuff.
Another quick thought: Is the crime *really* more heinous if there is hate thought or speech involved? How does the court quantify that?
Well, but what is prosecutable as a crime has always depended on what people think. Otherwise there would be no difference between murder and excusable homicide (say, by accident or in self-defense). The physical act and its effect upon the victim are identical; the only difference is state of mind.
Guy’s point in #11 goes to the heart of the issue, though: does hate crime really justify a harsher punishment? That’s not a question for a court, or for lawyers — it’s not even a legal question. It’s a question for the people and their legislature. In California, at least, that legislature has weighed the pros and cons and passed a statute.
Which brings us to a different argument in favor of hate crime legislation: at least the process creating it is accountable to the people. In the absence of hate crime legislation, I suspect you’d still be seeing enhanced sentences for particularly heinous crimes — except that instead of an elected legislature deciding what was “heinous,” it would be an individual sentencing judge (who, in the absence of definitive statutory guidance, might feel that the application of his own judgment is something that he is duty-bound to apply). Depending on how you feel about individualized judicial discretion in these areas, you might actually prefer the legislative approach on democratic grounds (or at least for reasons of consistency across judges).
Personally I go back and forth on whether judges or legislatures should have “tactical control” in matters of sentencing, but this whole hate crime controversy does provide something of a different spin on things.
Fbl – didn’t mean to say that your original statements were “blanketing” the issue. Not at all. Just trying to illustrate the larger point that not everyone is controlled by their inherent morality – be it hatred of gays, blacks, jews, etc…
And for what it’s worth in this somewhat insulated by always thought-provoking forum, that Lex allows us to hijack occasionally
,I have to admit that my opinion about hate crimes is shifting, based on the lucid, articulate and reasoned comments posted here and on Lex’s previous thread.
What I thought was a hate crime may be more clearly defined as a sociopath acting out a prejudice or phobia in a violent manner. And if that is true, than the sociopath is going to act out in a violent manner eventually, it may not be predicated upon the color/sex/etc… of the eventual victim.
Interesting thoughts to ponder.