Another victim

[rhondamichelle]

To All,

As November 20th, the Transgender Day of Rememberance, approaches, I am asking everyone to remember the latest victim of the hate and intolerance that exists in our society.
Moses "Teish" Cannon, a 20 year old transgendered african-american youth, was ruthlessly gunned down Friday, November 15th, in which court papers reveal the fact that the victim was transgendered and openly gay appears to be the sole motive for the crime. The full story can be seen on WSTM.com (channel 3, Syracuse NY) titled "Murder on Seymour Street".
Transgendered support groups in the Central New York area are asking prosecutors to label this murder as a hate crime, and well it should be labelled as such.
I will try to provide more information as it becomes available.

Rhonda Michelle

[Raquel June]

That's terrible.

I really don't like hate crime legislation, though. Totally unjustified murder should all be treated the same. It bothers me that there are laws which make certain people's lives worth more than others. Several states have laws where cop killers get a mandatory death penalty, but other murderers almost never get the death penalty. Hate crime laws are the same thing. It's ridiculous to think that if I got shot en femme my killer would likely spend twice as long in prison. We should all get equal protection.

[balletchick]

That sucks!!!

I can't believe that people can be so narrowminded and hate filled to kill a transgender person this world sickens me sometimes. I went to the the station web site and read the story I hope the killer gets the death penalty I'm not sure if they have it in New York.

[battybattybats]

That's terrible.

I really don't like hate crime legislation, though. Totally unjustified murder should all be treated the same. It bothers me that there are laws which make certain people's lives worth more than others. Several states have laws where cop killers get a mandatory death penalty, but other murderers almost never get the death penalty. Hate crime laws are the same thing. It's ridiculous to think that if I got shot en femme my killer would likely spend twice as long in prison. We should all get equal protection.

It is not remotely about one persons life being worth more than anothers with hate crime.

It is recognising that a hate crime is an act of terrorism that inflicts harm not just on friends and relatives but on the entire targeted community.

Hate crime is not just about murder. Just hate-crime graffitti illustrates this perfectly.

A 'tag' of someones name on the side of a hobby store is grafitti. An act of vandalism. Bad yes.

A swastika painted on the side of a synagogue is more than just grafitti and vandalism. It is a threat. An act designed to instill fear and terror in a community.

Hate-murders like the lynching of Blacks who had the courage to love white people or who stood up for themselves were murdered for disobeying and fighting against the oppression against them.

The rape of women who are advocates of womens rights is also intended to 'shut them up' 'put them in their place' and to 'use violence to oppress not just the individual but all others'.

It's suppoesed to hurt not just the individual hurt directly but to send a message of fear to all others in that group, to keep them quiet, make them hide, make them dissapear from public life.

The murder of Gay and Transgender people functions in exactly the same way.

And then there is another sad fact about hate-crimes.

Generally Hate-murderers are less often convicted than non-hate murderers except when hate-crime legislation is involved! Hate-murderers often receive lower sentences than non-hate murderers!

This is because of bias in juries and judges. Often defence will play up the prejudices of the jury so that they actually identify with the murderer!

So hate-crime legislation helps obtain an equal level of conviction and sentencing, helps act against bias in the courtroom perverting justice and recognises that all hate crimes, because grafitti, harassment, assault and sexual assault are all often hate-crimes not just murder, are acts of terrorism that affect the entire targeted community.

Now that I have explained that hate-murder is just the extreme end of painting 'Hitler didn't go far enough' on a Jewish store owners house or hanging nooses in the yard of a black family, that its intimidation and harm to a vulnerable and oppressed comunity is being recognised in addition to the harm to the person killed their family and friends can you change your mind about supporting hate-crime legislation?

Hate crime = terrorism.

[CD Susan]

It is sad that this kind of hatred and bigotry still exists in our society. I do not understand how someone can be so overcome with hatred towards another human just because of gender identification or sexual orientation to commit such a horrible act. My thoughts will be with all of the victims and thier family members and loved ones on thier day of rememberance on November 20th.

[Angie G]

I lived in Syracuce And hearing this news is a sad thing. And I hope it is treated as a hat crime.
Angie

[kathtx]

That's terrible.

I really don't like hate crime legislation, though. Totally unjustified murder should all be treated the same. It bothers me that there are laws which make certain people's lives worth more than others. [...]We should all get equal protection.

In the US at least, the original purpose of federal (or state) hate crimes laws was to give the federal (or state) government a way to prosecute when a local jury acquits due to bias. If a local jury acquits members of a lynch mob, the federal or state attorney can step in and prosecute for hate crimes. The intent was (and is) to provide equal protection in the face of unequal enforcement by local law enforcement, which in the US has sometimes been a serious problem.

They were never intended for "piling on" to give a tougher sentence for a crime that the locals are already prosecuting, but unfortunately, in practice, that sometimes happens. Whether the cure is worse than the disease is an open question, but in discussing the downsides of hate crimes laws we need to remember why they were originally passed. It wasn't to privilege certain groups, it was to provide equal protection.

[Raquel June]

It is not remotely about one persons life being worth more than anothers with hate crime.

Whether or not that's the intent of the legislation, that's the result.

It is recognising that a hate crime is an act of terrorism that inflicts harm not just on friends and relatives but on the entire targeted community.

It "inflicts harm" on the entire community? We're talking about murder here. Murder always scares the community it happened in. Sure, deliberately inciting fear in a community is terrible, but does it make murder twice as bad? Does it make murder ten times as bad? Is scaring people really worse than killing them?

Look at three hypothetical killers. One murdered a gay black guy and witnesses think he was angry at all gays and black people. One murdered a cop. One murdered a suburban white guy. Mr. Hate Crime will get a life sentence. Mr. Cop Killer will get the death penalty. The guy who murdered the straight white guy is going to get 10 years in prison and that will be reduced to 8 if he doesn't kill another person in prison. Regardless of the motivation of these laws, the result is that cops, minorities, and gays lives are now worth more than other people.

A black guy in New York got a life sentence (well, he's scheduled for release in 2247) for not even killing anybody. He took some hostages and sprayed kerosene on them and said, "White people are going to burn tonight!" The man was obviously insane, and a few years ago he would've spent no time in jail because he's crazy and didn't actually hurt anyone, but now he's a "terrorist" guilty of a hate crime and he gets life in prison.

See? Even if you take murder out of the equation entirely, hate crimes are treated as worse than murder. Frightening gay people is worse than murdering straight people. It's stupid.

I go to a college in Dayton. In the past month, there have been five incidents during which 2 to 5 black males robbed people at gunpoint in dorms on campus. There is very little fuss being made about this. But guess what made a ton of news!

The Wright State Police Department would like the campus community’s assistance in gathering information regarding an ongoing investigation into threatening graffiti found in Oelman Hall men’s’ restrooms.

The police department requests that any individual with information regarding the following graffiti please contact the WSU campus police department at (937) 775-2111.
• Graffiti making Neo-Nazi references
• Graffiti making homophobic references
• Graffiti making references to Columbine
• Graffiti making references to death on 10-31

Such threats and behavior fall into the category of hate crimes and inducing alarm and will never be tolerated on our campus. In Ohio, showing bias against specific groups is considered a greater offense and holds significant consequences.

The safety of the university community is the highest priority of the Wright State University Police Department and any threat of violence is taken seriously. The police department is implementing an increased police presence on campus Friday.

Oelman Hall is the math building. So, some ignorant 19-year-old nerd was taking a crap and got bored and wrote stupid stuff on the restroom wall. Now we all have to live in fear? I think not. I'm not worried about the guy drawing swastikas. I'm worried about the roving band of gangsters with Glocks on campus.

They were never intended for "piling on" to give a tougher sentence for a crime that the locals are already prosecuting, but unfortunately, in practice, that sometimes happens.

Yeah ... I've had some relatively minor run-ins with the legal system. They love to charge you with 15 things just to see what sticks.

[battybattybats]

Whether or not that's the intent of the legislation, that's the result.

How so? Isn't it just like adding an additional punishment for an additional crime? That is done plenty with other things. A person can be charged with Carjacking AND murder. So why then is this not the same as that?

It "inflicts harm" on the entire community? We're talking about murder here. Murder always scares the community it happened in. Sure, deliberately inciting fear in a community is terrible, but does it make murder twice as bad? Does it make murder ten times as bad? Is scaring people really worse than killing them?

The penalty sure isn't twice as much or ten times as much. And yes it does inflict harm on the entire community. When the guy who ran the Mr Whippy icecream store killed his wife the whole community was upset. When the war veteran was decapitated in my town everyone was scared and nervous because the killer was still at large. But when racist violence occured a portion of the community was downright terrified because they all knew that they might be the next victims. This is clearly distinctly different!

You see hate-crime, whether grafiti or assault or rape or murder involves propagating a threat to an entire group. Thats very different from people becoming scared that someone they bought a raspberry slushie from knifed his wife because that just reminds them that violence can occur to everyone, it is not a specific threat to them, but hate-crime is a specific threat to the entire group targeted.

Look at three hypothetical killers. One murdered a gay black guy and witnesses think he was angry at all gays and black people. One murdered a cop. One murdered a suburban white guy.

Sure, I love hypotheticals, they are very useful tools of reasoning.

Mr. Hate Crime will get a life sentence.

Often, especially if the victim is trans, the killer will be acquited! Check out the Trans Panic and Gay Panic defences for example. If not acquited the charge is often dropped to manslaughter! Recent cases involved a Transwoman shot from a short distance while running away according to forensics but the jury bought the scenario that the killer fired in self defence at point blank range ignoring the evidence, and where the jury bought that a transwoman having been robbed would then throttle herself in auto-erotic asphyxiation because all TGs are kinky and then somehow covered herself in a sheet to hifde her own dead body!

Hardly life sentences are they! hardly equal treatment is it? No! It is not!

Mr. Cop Killer will get the death penalty.

I certainly agree with you that there is no reason I have heard for cop-killers to be treated as worse than normal murderers. There may be a good argument for this but I have not heard one nor can I think of one at the moment.

The guy who murdered the straight white guy is going to get 10 years in prison and that will be reduced to 8 if he doesn't kill another person in prison.

He will usually get more than the murderers of TG peole get. Look at the cases and show me that there is a real practical injustice regarding hate crimes and TG!

Regardless of the motivation of these laws, the result is that cops, minorities, and gays lives are now worth more than other people.

Not so. Firstly one utter failure in the argument is that one measures worth by the penalty accorded. Instead it would be more accurate to state that it is the greater problem that should get the greater recourse. White mens lives are more valued because they dont have to get the extra protection as they are murderd less often!

Consider that! It is a measure of how little minorities lives are valued when their dissproportionate risk of being murdered neccessitates applying additional attempts to gain equal justice or additional deterrant!

So in fact your argument that white mens lives are worth less in actual fact can be used to argue that they are worth more!

A black guy in New York got a life sentence (well, he's scheduled for release in 2247) for not even killing anybody. He took some hostages and sprayed kerosene on them and said, "White people are going to burn tonight!" The man was obviously insane,

Obviously insane? How do you know he was insane? What appears obvious is not always so.

and a few years ago he would've spent no time in jail because he's crazy and didn't actually hurt anyone, but now he's a "terrorist" guilty of a hate crime and he gets life in prison.

If he is mentally ill and the system does not adequately take that into account then the law regarding insanity is what is needed to be reformed. Also those people being kidnapped were still hurt even if they were not killed, maimed etc.

See? Even if you take murder out of the equation entirely, hate crimes are treated as worse than murder. Frightening gay people is worse than murdering straight people. It's stupid.

Your example involved smeone kidnapping, a serious crime, threatening to kill a number of people and making preperations using flamable materials to do so. That's attempted multiple murders. That isn't just 'frightening gay people', thats attempted multiple murder!

Can you show me where a case of just 'frightening gay people' resulted in a dissproportionate sentencing? Because spraying a group of kidnapped people with flamamble liquid and threatening to burn them is kidnapping + death threats + attempted murder on multiple counts!

And even if he didn't go to jail in the past he clearly should have been locked up in a secure mental health facility for the violent mentally ill untill it could be determined that he was no longer a threat to the community which also may have been a life term!

I go to a college in Dayton. In the past month, there have been five incidents during which 2 to 5 black males robbed people at gunpoint in dorms on campus. There is very little fuss being made about this. But guess what made a ton of news!

Oelman Hall is the math building. So, some ignorant 19-year-old nerd was taking a crap and got bored and wrote stupid stuff on the restroom wall. Now we all have to live in fear? I think not. I'm not worried about the guy drawing swastikas. I'm worried about the roving band of gangsters with Glocks on campus.

So your issue is with what is being reported in the news?
Because I'd be very surprised if one count of hate-grafitti is punished more than multiple robbery with a deadly weapon.

And making threats to harm people is a crime. When its against a single individual it hurts that one person. When it's against a group of a hundred it is a hundred counts, a hundred times the single threat.

If your upset that a serious crime is not being properly investigated then you may have a good point there. But that does not mean that the other crime should not be. Also if one investigatio is going on quietly and another is calling on public assitance that does not mean that only the public one is real.

Yeah ... I've had some relatively minor run-ins with the legal system. They love to charge you with 15 things just to see what sticks.

And often people commit more than one crime at once. Often people break more than one law over their lifetime too.

[kathtx]

Regardless of the motivation of these laws, the result is that cops, minorities, and gays lives are now worth more than other people.

That's not true, at least not for the US federal hate crimes law, which I've quoted below. You can find it at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...1SaqG:e927518:

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

Nowhere in the text of the law does it say that the penalties are higher for someone murdering a gay man than they would be for someone murdering a straight man. According to the law quoted above, a gay man who kills a straight man while yelling "all straights must die" is subject to exactly the same penalty adjustments as a straight man who kills a gay man while yelling "all gays must die." The federal hate crimes act does not establish any specially protected categories of people. It simply establishes that certain motives can be taken into consideration in sentencing.

While I'm not familiar with all state and local hate crimes law, I expect that any state or local law that did establish "specially protected classes" would be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (as it should be).

[Raquel June]

How so? Isn't it just like adding an additional punishment for an additional crime? That is done plenty with other things. A person can be charged with Carjacking AND murder. So why then is this not the same as that?

I know what you're saying, and I don't necessarily think that the actual hate crime laws on the books are bad.

In the US, judges tend to give the minimum sentence for almost everything. They don't put much effort into it. From everything I've seen, though, people tend to get maximum sentencing on all counts for hate crimes.

The laws themselves look pretty rational. In practice, though, you see many cases of similar crimes where one is billed as a hate crime and one isn't, and the hate crime ends up resulting in a much more severe sentence.

The federal hate crimes act does not establish any specially protected categories of people. It simply establishes that certain motives can be taken into consideration in sentencing.

Yes, theoretically you could look at any crime and try to establish it as a hate crime, but you have to look at actual court cases. The precedent has been set and it is fairly easy for crimes against homosexuals to be prosecuted as hate crimes. It's getting easier and easier for almost any crime to be prosecuted as a hate crime (as in the case of the crazy black man who tied up a bunch of white people). Maybe we'll eventually see every violent crime being billed as a hate crime. Hate crimes against bank tellers. Hate crimes against people with nice cars. No matter how you look at it, it's not good.

It all just results in people being looked at with weird labels. Crimes against gays. Crimes against trans-people. Crimes against minorities. It feels kinda dehumanizing to me, because they're all crimes against people, and crimes against innocent people are tragic enough without labels.

[battybattybats]

I know what you're saying, and I don't necessarily think that the actual hate crime laws on the books are bad.

In the US, judges tend to give the minimum sentence for almost everything. They don't put much effort into it. From everything I've seen, though, people tend to get maximum sentencing on all counts for hate crimes.

The laws themselves look pretty rational. In practice, though, you see many cases of similar crimes where one is billed as a hate crime and one isn't, and the hate crime ends up resulting in a much more severe sentence.

Is this borne out by the data or an artifact of the way these are reported? With most soft hate crime sentences not being reported much and when the high sentences are being compared to uncommonly low ones?

Because the reports I hear in Australia of cases involving GLB and especially T hate crimes are woefully low sentences and clear misscarriages of justice.

Yes, theoretically you could look at any crime and try to establish it as a hate crime, but you have to look at actual court cases. The precedent has been set and it is fairly easy for crimes against homosexuals to be prosecuted as hate crimes. It's getting easier and easier for almost any crime to be prosecuted as a hate crime (as in the case of the crazy black man who tied up a bunch of white people). Maybe we'll eventually see every violent crime being billed as a hate crime. Hate crimes against bank tellers. Hate crimes against people with nice cars. No matter how you look at it, it's not good.

But the Black man attempted to murder a bunch of people who were all white and stated "White people are going to burn tonight!". It does appear to be both a serious crime and one where race was the motivation in victim choice. which would make that a hate crime surely?

It all just results in people being looked at with weird labels. Crimes against gays. Crimes against trans-people. Crimes against minorities. It feels kinda dehumanizing to me, because they're all crimes against people, and crimes against innocent people are tragic enough without labels.

But when a group is subjected to far higher rates of intimidation and violence rape and murder because they belong to that group then how would you suggest the system should respond?

Clearly that group has proportionately greater need. How better could that need be served then with hate-crime legislation?

[Janie Gunn]

You have a much stronger argument in what you are saying Batty, yours makes much more sense.

Janie