Wednesday, March 28, 2007

HATE CRIME or GAY POLITICS GONE WILD?


Four young black men accused of beating a gay recording artist, while yelling anti-gay slurs pleaded guilty Wednesday to hate crime charges.

According to 'The Associated Press,' the defendants faced up to 25 years in prison if they had been convicted of the top count, first-degree assault as a hate crime.

The assault took place around 1:30 a.m. on June 10, 2006 after Aviance left a gay bar in the city's East Village neighborhood. They threw two garbage bags and a paint can at the singer before attacking him and yelling anti-gay slurs, police said.

They punched and kicked the 39-year-old Richmond, Virginia native. Passers-by yelled for the attack to stop, and when it was over a man walked Aviance to a hospital.

In exchange for their guilty pleas Gerard Johnson, 17, will be sentenced to 15 years in prison; Akino George and Jarell Sears, both 21, will get eight-year prison terms; and Gregory Archie, 19, receive a six-year sentence.

Now these boys were WRONG. You attack a person, you should be punished. However, had Aviance not been a black homosexual but had he been a black heterosexual, had he been Big J - they would have been charged with assault and probably given probation and community service. 15 years in New York State Prison for a 17 year old had might as well be life in prison.

Yet in this era of out of control gay propaganda and identity politics homosexuals have been elevated to a status of legal protection higher than heterosexuals.

INTELLECTUAL INSURGENT
The Tyranny of Good Intentions 09-26-05
The point here is that the bend in the rules has created an absurdity in the law that needs to stop. Aren't all violent crimes crimes about hate? A crime is a crime. Why should the severity of the punishment depend upon the identity of the victim. As Roseville Conservative observed, "This is unfair and denies all individuals equal protection under the law. In addition, the whole concept of hate crimes is misleading. Every violent crime is an expression of hate against an individual. There is no such thing as a 'love' crime of violence."

When a poor person robs and kills someone for their property, is that not out of hate for the upper class? Does everyone in society now become a protected class and anything done to you because you are a particular color, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation becomes a subject for federal adjudication? It remains a mystery to me why state laws regarding vandalism, assault and murder do not suffice to cover crimes committed by crazy people, regardless of their motivations.

There is no end to this. At some point, everyone will be a minority (Whites are racial minorities in four states and counting) and will face hatred directed at them because of that minority identity. Expanding the scope of federalized crimes is not the answer and will not fix it. This is the history of humanity.

We are quickly sliding down the slippery slope and the jagged federal government consolidation rocks at the bottom look really dangerous. Someone please break our fall!

23 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

I wrote a post about this a while back.

http://intellectualinsurgent.blogspot.com/2005/09/tyranny-of-good-intentions.html#comments

Anonymous said...

DV, you losing ground!

With this post, you spew an equal amount of "out of control propaganda" as the gay lobby you so often criticize. The attackers are freakin' criminals who should be ashamed of themselves. I'm ashamed of them, the same way I was ashamed of that black guy who was robbin' old ladies in NY. We're better than such behavior. They attacked this man- point blank. And that dont have nothing to do with anybody's sexuality. They deserved whatever punishment they got.

And to your point about a non-gay victim, if the stats you cite are correct, then that just mens that those attackers (of the non-gay person) deserved more time, not that these attackers (of this gay man) deserved less.

Gay or not, this man is still black. Have they no dignity strong enough to override a difference in sexuality. Race trumps sexuality all day in my book.

You loose major credibility, when you use plain criminality (as is the case with this story) as the basis for your arguments.

Anonymous said...

BS DV, BS.

Denmark Vesey said...

Robyn,

Don’t even pretend like you believe my argument is anyway a defense of “criminality”. It’s not, and you know it’s not, so why even act that way?

I am simply questioning why this government punishes people more severely when they attack homosexuals than when they attack heterosexuals.

Hundreds of heterosexuals will be assaulted today. How many of their attackers are going to be sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary? Soldiers in Iraq raped a girl and set her body on fire. They didn’t even get 15 years in prison. Are homosexuals a higher class of citizens than non-homosexuals?

Why should the severity of the punishment depend upon the identity of the victim? Sentencing a 17 year old boy to 15 years in prison for a 10 minute assault is just as much a crime as the original attack.

Losing ground? Robyn, how you going to upgrade when you got #1?

Jasai ... BS? Moi? Nah. Not your boy. Come on now. How you gong to do me like that?

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Yeah DV, but Blacks have benefitted from the same elevated status under federal criminal law. Accepting your logic, then why should Blacks get elevated status over Whites or anyone else?

As I wrote in my post before, the whole concept of a hate crime is absurd. Where your argument is flawed is that you do not challenge the underlying premise. You just go after the absurdities that arise therefrom. But if Blacks or Muslims get hate crime protections, then so should gays.

Anonymous said...

OK... I will make this simple. Take the sexual aspect away. Hate crime can apply to race of course. I have heard this debated on CNN by two bro's recently and the one made an excellent point. All violent crime is bad no doubt. But all hate crime's are not violent in reality. Thus one can be charged with a hate crime without an act of physical violence. That is the purpose of the additional charge. The law was put into effect because of the rising number of cases in criminal justice systems. Whether it intends to protect gays or minorities I rather have it in play than not. Would you agree?

Denmark Vesey said...

Insurgent,
“Blacks have benefited from the same elevated status under federal criminal law”?

Let’s skip whether or not that is true in practice or even true in theory. It’s not my argument.

I don’t support different laws for any “groups”. Blacks, whites, Jews, homosexuals, Aquarians, kleptomaniacs or Rastafarians.

I condemn all group identity politics because it is a cancer that will destroy a nation of people by fracturing them into politically manufactured, hyphenated and Balkanized demographic cesspools of group think.

Divide and conquer.

Under the pretense of “good” a great deal of bad is being done.

Notice the knee jerk reaction of Robyn. I’m attacking the selective distribution of justice and she jumps to the conclusion I’m “attacking gays”.

Denmark Vesey said...

"But all hate crime's are not violent in reality. Thus one can be charged with a hate crime without an act of physical violence."

Anonymous ...

If you remove "physical violence" from assault ... with what are you left?

There in lies the problem. "Hate" is not tangible. Hate is t-h-o-u-g-h-t

HATE CRIMES are in reality THOUGHT CRIMES.

The government has suckered liberals into advocating the policing of thought, by marketing it as protection of gays, blacks and other defenseless minorities.

Right Jasai?

Now this young boy - who received a 15 year sentence - is effectively doing 5 years for assault and 10 years for not liking homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

Let me give an example. If someone comes to your house and spray paints the following " Nig&%^"/Black man and family go back to Africa or else" on your front door that is a hate crime without violence different from spray painting "Jay-Z Rules" which is a lesser offense. Neither has physical violence but treated differently due to the nature/intent. Now if that same person then waited for you to exit the home and hit you in the the head then you have assault added with a hate crime. The rational for tagging the two is now as a law or policy maker society understands if there trends that need to be addressed. The argument needs to consider all aspects of such attempts to protect people. Your premise is to remove this distinction and I not understanding how it's harming your daily life. It's like saying why should we have seatbelts or airbags it when it makes my car more expensive. Just imagine if the Sate of NJ State Troopers did not record what the race of the people they were stopping and arresting or ticketing everyday on the Turnpike for years for no reason. We would have never been able to quantify and determine that minorities were being stopped and arrested/ticketed more frequently then whites. Your ideals are based on a perfect society... But brother we are far from that place ;)

Anonymous said...

No, DV, he's going 15 years for being an asshole and not knowing that that 10 minute assault could and would ruin the rest of his life. His (their) stupidity alone should be criminal.

To further the point (about how stupid these attackers are), some Black people kill me. We complain and rant about how things arent fair for us and how we generally get the short end of the stick (which is often 100% true). But then, rather than act in accordance with the conditions we so often complaint about (i.e., be mindulful of them so you dont get your ass in a sling), we charge - full speed ahead - with some plan thats bound to make us the subject of the inequity. Ingenious!

Denmark Vesey said...

Robyn,

You know you my girl, but damn. You completely missed this one.

You are comparing apples to sushi.

Please don't get my argument pregnant with "Black people complain about things aren't fair".

You have never heard me advocate anything so weak as that. My experience as a black man has been disproportionately advantageous. I've lived a better life than 99% of white folks in this country. I reject the application of victim status to entire groups based on anything as general as race.

The issue is equal protection under the law for all Americans, not special penalties depending on the identity of the victim.

Anonymous said...

Granted, "the black people complain too much" part was an aside.

But my 1st paragraph was a direct response to your argument that much of the man's sentence was the result of the fact that the victim was gay. I simply dont buy that.

Denmark Vesey said...

Oh ... I see.

So you think the FEDERAL "hate" charge is just symbolic.

No real teeth, huh? What, you think they may tack like 6 months max onto an assault sentence for a "hate crime"?

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

The federal "Hate" crime is worse than the state assault charge.

That 17 year old boy could have beaten the shit out of 3 heterosexual women and sold crack rock cocaine to a 9 year old and he wouldn't have received 15 years in federal prison.

-

Anonymous said...

How bout stop attacking gay people simply because theyre gay (if you tell me this man provoked them, I'll vomit), and no one has to worry about any sentence enhancement under federal law.

You'll never concede, I know you, but you cant combat that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Denmark Vesey said...

Anonymous,

First of all you need a nickname. You’re smart and I like your style.

If a person breaks into my house and paints "Nig&%^"/Black man and family go back to Africa or else" – they should be charged with breaking and entering, damaging property and trespassing. (case would never make it to trial because I exercise my 2nd amendment right like it’s going out of style)

Hating me because I am black is not illegal. It shouldn’t be.

Not liking homosexuals is not illegal. It shouldn’t be. Assaulting anyone, including homosexuals, is illegal, and should the law should stop right there.

Using the law as a tool to enforce social engineering is dangerous.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_2/goldberger.php

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/hate_crimes_legislation_back.html

Denmark Vesey said...

Robyn said...

How bout stop attacking gay people simply because theyre gay (if you tell me this man provoked them, I'll vomit), and no one has to worry about any sentence enhancement under federal law.


How about stop attacking .... PEOPLE ... gay or otherwise?

Why are you ignoring the issue of equal protection and attempting to turn this into "an attack on gays" counselor?

Apparently getting reactionary liberals like you accustomed to one set of laws for gays, Jews, and other politically powerful groups, and another set of laws for the rest of us is an effective tool to achieve mass conformity.

Before you know it they will have Americans submitting to unwarranted searches, removing their shoes before they board planes and tolerating unwarranted phone taps.

Oops. Too late for that.

Anonymous said...

Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are violent crimes, hate speech or vandalism, motivated by feelings of enmity against an identifiable social group. Animosity towards the victims of hate crimes are often based on race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin. Hate crimes differ from regular crime motivated by economic gain or personal animosity. In the United States, criminal acts motivated by bias can easily be confused with forms of expression protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Once again "Hate Crimes" are not always defined with violence... A person can be charged without a violent act.

Anonymous said...

DV: Why are you ignoring the issue of equal protection and attempting to turn this into "an attack on gays" counselor?

Robyn:
Well generally I have my responsible Black person cloak on when I address issues on your blog, but since you would like to hear from the lawyer....

The sentence enhancements you take issue with do not DENY anyone equal protection as put forth in the constitution. An EP argument in this case would be that "the attackers are being denied their right to attack gay people." (That sounded stupid even typing it, but nonetheless, it continues to come from your mouth, but I digress.).

First of all, to even go down the EP road, you must have a protected class. Gay bashers hardly qualify. There is no long standing tangible unfair treatment of gaybashers (your opinion notwithstanding). There are no clear widespread policies that shortchange gay bashers (last I read, the hate crime classification applies to crimes beyond those committed against homosexuals). Not to mention, EP is a means to protect RIGHTS that people legally have in this country. AGAIN, the right to gay bash fails to fit the bill.

The fact is that sentence enhancements are legal in this country and often are based on sound public policy and undeniable social realities. I, frankly, support policy that cuts against attacks on innocent people because they are gay. I am also honest enough to admit that such attacks happen often. Funny, I don’t hear you up in arms about the felony murder rule (another sentence enhancement that can garner sentencing "discrepancies" like those you spoke of above). And though I think you commented against crack vs. powder laws and the three strike law in CA on thestateof, I have yet to see a post on your blog about such topics or to hear you call someone a "cocaine cop."

You're undeniably smart DV, and clearly well read and informed. However, you should be mindful that your well intentioned efforts to challenge the status quo and to compel independent real world thinking (I will continue to take them as such b/c I'm not ready to cast you off yet) are starting to look more like wholesale bigotry and hate each day - some of the stupidest most uninformed shit in this world. You are able to say NMK with ease. Why not LALL (Live and Let live) on this issue?

……………And as the jury stands and applauds, she picks up her briefcase - bad suit tellingly crisp and unruffled - and proceeds from the courtroom!

Denmark Vesey said...

Slow down Ally McBeal,

Again, you have distorted my argument. I am not advocating protection for "gay bashers". I am challenging extraneous protection for gays (or blacks or Jews or midgets) beyond the protection afforded to non-gay Americans.

I am challenging the wisdom and the constitutionality of the creation of special "protected classes" of citizens.

This is not about "enhanced sentencing". This is about "enhanced rights".

Again counselor, I am surprised by your need to reduce this exchange to glorified "gay bashing".

Stay On The Point.

-

-

Anonymous said...

Whatever, DV. If I "stay on the point" will you finally respond to the substance and root of the discussion without relying on repetitive colorful coloquialism and name calling??!!

And I didnt twist or distort your argument. Instead, I pointed out, quite well, its shortcomings. But I forgot, regarding anyone that doesnt agree with you, the two are one in the same.

Anonymous said...

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"

Baretta 1975

Anonymous said...

"Now this young boy - who received a 15 year sentence - is effectively doing 5 years for assault and 10 years for not liking homosexuals."
-DV

tomato. tom(ah)to.

how come idiots don't just keep in mind that this shit is rigged and knock it the phuck off? That's an approach.