Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Event Hate Crimes Panel Discussion on Thursday
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Currently, sexual orientation and gender identity are absent from Tennessee hate crimes laws. That means February 2008 transgender beating victim Duanna Johnson (who was shot later that year in an unrelated incident) wouldn't have had much recourse if she'd attempted to pursue her abuser — former Memphis Police officer Bridges McRae — with a hate crimes violation. McRae beat Johnson with handcuffs after she refused to answer to "he/she" and "fag."
On Thursday, October 29th, OutLaw and the Stonewall Tigers are hosting a panel discussion on the current status of hate crimes legislation in Tennessee. The panel will feature Representative Jeanne Richardson, Senator Beverly Marrero, Johnson's former attorney Murray Wells, hate crime survivor Jack Robinson, and Tennessee Equality Project board member Darlene Fike. The panel will run from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. in rooms 250 and 252 in the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis.
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
This is totally absurd. What do you mean that 'she wouldn't have recourse'? There are penalties on the law-books against assault and battery. What they are looking for is to apply the penalty of double-jeapordy; which isn't trying the same crime twice. It is merely adding a double penalty. It violates the 1st amendment of free speech and the 14th amendment of equal protection by having 'special class' protection. It is also a composition fallacy of equating behavior with original civil rights intent.
like
dislike
"There are penalties on the law-books against assault and battery"
this is one of those rare but disturbing times where I sort of agree with what CHG posts (but based on his posting history, I would most certainly part ways with the mindset behind the post).
There are many cases in which intent determines appropriate charges. We have strong precedents for this.
Don't rush to pat CHG on the back for once again bearing false witness about the Constitution.
Double jeopardy doesn't mean that someone can't be charged with two crimes arising from the same incident, it means that they shouldn't be retried on the same charges in the same court.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit…
And convicting someone for lynchings or other criminal actions against the groups specified as protected, isn't a violation of free speech or equal protection.
The legislative intent for civil rights laws was to recognize groups that were oppressed at some point, and balance that by giving limited special considerations.
As far as hate crimes enhancements, they apply a pattern long established in law, that suitable punishment for a specific action falls within a range determined by the totality of the circumstances.
Thus, aggravated battery draws a harsher sentence than mere battery, even though both are determined by a 'harmful touching'. Treason is considered worse than simply the act of stealing a document, premeditated murder draws a harsher punishment than negligent homicide, and so forth.
If we agree with those distinctions, and particularly if we feel that there should be a harsher punishment for say, killing a President, or a child, or a police officer, than for accidently killing someone with a machine that goes out of control, then we are agreeing with the principle of enhancements.
The question then becomes if *any* certain group or individual should be so categorized.
CHG's fear that a 'special class' of gay people will suddenly appear to menace his kind of society is a fiction. Special classes as shown aove, already exist.
"If we agree with those distinctions, and particularly if we feel that there should be a harsher punishment for say, killing a President, or a child, or a police officer, than for accidently killing someone with a machine that goes out of control, then we are agreeing with the principle of enhancements. "
fair points, all. and I'm admittedly rather ignorant when it comes to matters of jurisprudence. I guess my thought is that legislative time & energy would be better spent ensuring all citizens are treated equally with regards to marriage, hospital visitation rights, etc.
wvfii, from what absolute moral source do you derive the notion that all citizens should be treated equally? lol. btw, chg, since you don't even agree with "orginal civil rights intent" on "philosophical" grounds (yeah, right), I'd say you're hardly the person to give readings on what the intent of civil rights legislation actually was.
Who knew lynching was protected by the 1st amendment? CHG spreading the truth and influencing people one insane post at a time.
@wvfii
Oh, I agree that equality in those areas you mention is long past due.
But just sitting around politely waiting for society to give equality willingly, has worked about as well as it did when women 'just waited', or when black people 'just waited'. Activism is clearly needed, and new legislation.
In the case of violence targeting gay people, pragmatically I suspect that the difference between simply getting charged locally with assault and pleading it down to disturbing the peace, versus facing federal charges with stiff sentences, might send a message... maybe not to the violent ones at first, but at least to the cheerleaders.
Powergamz,
What a person does and says are two different things. My reference to the 1st amendment was in regards to McRae's words.
The appeal to double-jeopardy was not to being tried twice for the same crime. Go and re-read what I wrote. I said that they are charging the person with double penalties as 'if' it were double-jeopardy.
This is a tough one. I understand the idea and the principal behind the hate crime legislation, but I also see the difficulty in applying it.
Does simple vandalism like what was recently done to the billboard of the gay Marine constitute a hate crime? Does a person belonging to a radical group influence their being charged with a hate crime? Then who decides on which groups are protected? Which organizations make one a "hate crime" suspect?
I know we could what if this all day long and that is not my intent. Just asking some questions as I am no attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but really just do not see how this legislation is beneficial, especially with the difficulty in applying it.
CHG, you are bearing false witness about double jeopardy *and* about what you said... as you were with your 'all Indians are nomadic' nonsense and your false claims about Hume, the Constitution, etc.
Just because you've transposed a few words in your head, deleted some others, made up your own definitions, and declared yourself the beneficiary of special knowledge, doesn't make any of it so... and no amount of your sophomoric spin will change that.
@mad_merc
I agree about the difficulties in enforcement, and I'm tempted to consign it to 'feel good political bandaid' status.
If it is enforced so that the questions you asked can be more fully explicated through court rulings, then I hope for an effect similar to the one that slowly wore down the old guard of violent racists from the 50s.
The 10th amendment gives the states jurisdiction over general crimes. The only crimes the Feds can legally prosecute are treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. Hate crimes is a fallacy of extrapolation. Physical harm to one member of a specific class is not harm to the entire class, as this legislation assumes. They apply hatred in a universal manner to the entire whole. Let's say an arsonist burns down a church. Is he guilty of a hate crime against religions in general? Of course not, he could simply say that he enjoyed watching buildings burn. Choosing 'hate' above other motives is purely arbitrary. The entire concept begs the question of hate being wrong in the first place. If the state wants to separate from any religious ideology, then choosing 'hate' above other motives is purely subjective and arbitrary at best. The 1st amendment separation is one of institutional jurisdiction, not ideology as an incidental. The state or the Feds do not appeal to any morals other than 'mob-rule' law and ethical pragmatism. What is 'right' today, can easily be 'wrong' tomorrow in that humanistic morality. I find it interesting that secular humanists and evolutionists who insist that we are nothing more than 'matter in motion' assign moral imperatives to matter!
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
