Wyo. town reflects 10 years after Shepard's murder

I know. 

Every time I drive across Wyoming, I think of Matt Shepherd and it feels too recent.  Too tragic.

Probably because of the more recent cinematic treatment the case has been given. MTV produced a really moving story awhile back. It really fleshed out his character and made Shepard so much more than a tragic victim.

His beating was an amazingly cruel act of violence. I'm glad that convictions were won.

because a hate crime law woudl be a law against his base.

I used to think the same thing, but I dont now.  A Crime is a Crime, but the reason behind that crime makes a difference.   Look at Murder. You Have Murder 1, and Murder 2, and Man Slaughter, and....   And each one has its own set of 'punishments'.  

A man who steals because he is hungry, is different from a man who steals because he hates who you are. 

To hurt another human with HATE is the one true sin.

glad you asked.

if a guy gets killed out of passion on yoru block.. it's interesting and maybe a bit scary for some but really no big deal. IF someone is killing gays on yoru street and your gay.. it becomes terrorfying.

So the reason for hate crime laws.. is the crime is more than a crime agains a victum but against a community. It becomes more than a crime but a terrorist act.

and for your example it doesnt really apply.. there is no difference if a hetro man kills another hetro man  or a htro man killing a homosexual.. the differnce coems if he spay paints faggot all over him.

With hate criems yous till need intent.. you stillneed to knwo they tied the guy to the fence becaue he was gay and not cause they got into a bar room fight.

hope that clears it up.

normal crime has one victum.. hate crimes victomise a community. therefore hate criems are worse than than the same crime committed out of passion or for money.

There are really several ways to look at hate crime laws.

One is that it's similar to affirmative action in some ways. There are places and people who see it as "less" of a crime to kill a person of color or a homosexual person, therefor the people who commit those crimes are less likely to receive the punishment they deserve. Hate crimes laws force justice, in that way. Unfortunately, just like there are places that still say "she was asking for it by wearing a short skirt", there are places that condone crimes against people because of the color of their skin or whom they sleep with.

Another way of looking at it is to consider it just another "degree" of crime. We have first and second degree murder. First degree murder is generally "pre-meditated." What a hate crime law does is makes hate motivated homicide equal to a first degree murder because, even though it may not be pre-meditated, there is still a clear, thought-out desire to cause pain and even death to another person.

Hate crime laws also send the message that hatred - especially violent hatred - towards a group of people simply because of their skin color, gender, sexuality, etc will not be tolerated and will be severely punished. Unfortunately we live in a society that needs that message.

Also, if you look at a "crime of passion" - that person is unlikely to commit the crime again because it was purely situational (that is not an excuse, by the way). But someone who commits a "hate crime" is targeting a group of people and could be prone to commit the crime again, just like a habitual heroine user is likely to use heroine again... just another way to look at it.

I wish that we could trust our judicial system and our citizens to see all people as equal and all homicides and violence as equal, but we can't. So laws like this are necessary.

and yeah as for intention.. do you think it is not differnt a man that systematically plans to kill his wife vs a man that walks in on his wife and her lover and flips?

Or how about a guy that just wants to beat up another guy but not kill him but ends up killing him?

there is greta reasons are laws are not just black and white but also have a lot of gray.

There is also something to be said for making it more comfortable for acknowledging who they are.  Homosexuals may choose to keep their lives private but one of the reasons that that choose to do that ought not be their fear of others attacking them because of it.  Changing that mindset is a complex thing and having hate crimes on the books is one way of making our society more open that our legislative system can address. 

Murdering a police officer is one area where some of the same logic applied regarding intent coming into play where penalties are established.  We've elevate the penalities for this because we have rightly decided that additional protection is needed because police officers are at a greater risk for attempts on their lives due to attempts to enforce the laws and apprehsion of criminals.  Is it generally accepted that intent to attack citizens who are police officers is worth considering when penalties are established. Those who argue that intent has no role in determination of penalty (# 4.0) are also implicitly arguing that this consideration be removed.     Differentiation between who the victim is (orientation, age, gender, ethnicity, etc) and who they are (police officer or citizen) would be the necessary next area of discussion. My opinion is the hate crimes ought to remain on the books and legislated into existance elsewhere to encourage a more tolerant society. 

Nohandouts, You said it better than I did. I totally agree with you.

Hate crime laws give more protection and maybe a little more feeling of safety to those who maybe targeted for violence.

So why is it when heterosexual whites are targeted for being white, the crimes are very rarely considered a hate crime? Shouldn't hate crime laws be applied to any case of someone being targeted due to race or sexual orientation?

The Hate Crimes You Don't Hear About

Long Beach Hate Crime

T13:

Regardless of the reason why, I'd agree to equal application of the principle regardless of the direction of the crime.

Threecents, sorry if I only repeated what you said.  I didn't read through the post before writing mine. 

And also T13, proving the intent is much more difficult that proving the act itself. 

Tacitus13: Because white people are not an oppressed minority, nor are straight people. Straight white people are not routinely targeted for acts of violence and discrimination, on a personal and systemic level. The cries about how the groups in a position of social and official power (being white, straight, male, and rich) are being discriminated against are absolutely absurd. By taking steps to shrug off the oppression of these groups, attention is brought to the injustice of those dominant groups and how the extremism of a few is perpetuated by their perceptions of these oppressed groups. These steps infringe upon the privileges of the dominant groups that are taken for granted, which is incorrectly perceived as "reverse-discrimination."

If you'd like to better understand it, familiarize yourself with sociology. It's offered at any college, and there's plenty of it online. It's some pretty mind-opening @!$%#.

And also T13, proving the intent is much more difficult that proving the act itself.

Very true, but that also applies to cases involving white-on-black crimes and crimes against gays. Even Matthew's case had multiple motives as to why he was targeted.

Because white people are not an oppressed minority, nor are straight people. Straight white people are not routinely targeted for acts of violence and discrimination, on a personal and systemic level.

Just who is an oppressed minority and what leads you to that conclusion? I thought hate crime laws were designed to protect everyone from being targeted due to their race or sexual orientation. Why should I support or want laws that protect others but not me on the basis of equality?

The cries about how the groups in a position of social and official power (being white, straight, male, and rich) are being discriminated against are absolutely absurd.

I have already pointed out cases where whites were targeted due to the color of their skin. Don't they deserve equal justice? And just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm rich or that old white guys in office have my best interests at heart.

Until white people get equal punishment under the law, I can't really care enough if a few white people that are targeted for being white don't get "more" justice. But really, your question is evident of the fact that you don't truly understand the reasons for hate crime legislation. Racism, sexism, homo/transphobia are problems in our society. The victims of these things targeting those that have long targeted them really doesn't strike me as comparable, as it wouldn't be motivated by irrational hate, but by undeniable and long-standing socioeconomic factors, personal bigotry, and systemic oppression. I'm not legitimizing unnecessary violence, just stating that what few violent crimes against white people that are racially motivated are such because of a white supremacist society, as compared to [insert absurd, irrational justifications for racism here].

Seriously, dude. Sociology. The study of society and culture. It's pretty relevant.

Until white people get equal punishment under the law, I can't really care enough if a few white people that are targeted for being white don't get "more" justice.

I would argue that we have a money-based justice system. Anyone (black or white) with a public defender is pretty much screwed. The better the lawyer that you can afford, the much better plea deal or sentence you are likely to get. The justice system does need an overhaul.

But really, your question is evident of the fact that you don't truly understand the reasons for hate crime legislation. Racism, sexism, homo/transphobia are problems in our society. The victims of these things targeting those that have long targeted them really doesn't strike me as comparable, as it wouldn't be motivated by irrational hate, but by undeniable and long-standing socioeconomic factors, personal bigotry, and systemic oppression.

So racism against blacks is very bad, but racism against hetero whites is not nearly as bad, because the system favored whites in the past? Thanks, but I'll continue to oppose hate-crime legislation as long as racism against anyone is not considered equal.

Seriously, dude. Sociology. The study of society and culture. It's pretty relevant.

Please spare me your sociological kick. Real life experience has taught me much more about society and cultures than a college class could ever hope to.

Real life has taught me that people that claim real life experience as valid while at the same time dismissing education are close-minded fools. At best.

The justice system is class-based, you're correct in that. Due to systemic racism, those that aren't white tend to lack class privilege. Add on racial profiling, sentencing disparity, and some logic, and your entire argument crumbles like dollar store cookies. Why else would 40%+ of our prison population be black men, when they comprise less than 10% of the U.S. population?

Real life has taught me that people that claim real life experience as valid while at the same time dismissing education are close-minded fools. At best.

I understand the value of education but I realize that it isn't a panacea and has its limitations.

Due to systemic racism, those that aren't white tend to lack class privilege.

Of course it must be due to racism because minorities can't possibly be expected to better themselves, right? And all those black women that choose to put themselves through school, to make the sacrifices necessary to better their lives, how do you explain them?

Add on racial profiling, sentencing disparity, and some logic, and your entire argument crumbles like dollar store cookies.Why else would 40%+ of our prison population be black men, when they comprise less than 10% of the U.S. population?

Considering that only 4% of the prison population is considered probably innocent, I'd say the vast majority of them made some pretty bad decisions and got caught. So because 40% of all prisoners are black, blacks that commit racist crimes against whites shouldn't be held accountable for hate-crimes? Talk about illogical...

It is the responsibility of every person to work to overcome the hurdles in their lives. Equally so, it is the responsibility of every person to work against inequity; to work against additional hurdles placed on some groups. Yes, people have risen above the hurdles, but there's a @!$%# of a lot more for minorities to rise above than there are for white people. These hurdles are called socioeconomic factors. These hurdles are covered in sociology and psychology. Like, you can understand them if you pay attention in the first semester of a class on each. Nice attempt to blame the oppressed parties for not overcoming their oppression en masse, though, 'cause that's not racist at all.

You're missing the point. Either you're missing it on purpose, or you're beyond reach. Buttress your life experience with more education. You may be shocked at what you realize.

Yes, people have risen above the hurdles, but there's a @!$%# of a lot more for minorities to rise above than there are for white people. These hurdles are called socioeconomic factors.

I disagree. There's a lot more hurdles for poor people to overcome than just belonging to a minority group. A poor white person faces much more substantial obstacles than a rich black person.

Nice attempt to blame the oppressed parties for not overcoming their oppression en masse, though, 'cause that's not racist at all.

In my experience, those that have tried to better their lives have generally succeeded, regardless of race or class. You keep talking about oppressed parties but this is 2008 and America. It is not a disgrace for a man to be born in poverty, but it is a disgrace not to try to improve one's lot in life.

You're missing the point. Either you're missing it on purpose, or you're beyond reach. Buttress your life experience with more education. You may be shocked at what you realize.

In my line of work, continuous learning is a way of life. But while Sociology 101 may be a revelation to you, it's merely going to be rehashing things I already know.

Race is borne of class. Imagine a Venn diagram. The majority of the race circle is contained within the class circle, but does not constitute the entirety of it. I never denied that lower class whites got it hard. The poor are one of the groups of which I speak. Thing is, due to the racism that you seem to be too white to understand, poor people of color have a lot more to work against than poor white people.

By the by, I don't really see how reminding me of the year and which country I live in is going to make me suddenly deny reality.

If that's what you have to tell yourself to avoid questioning what you're comfortable believing, then fine, go for it. Whatever makes ignorance hurt less.

Brian,  All of what you said could be accurate and so I am inclined to not dispute it but your pre-emptive belligerance is over the top (who are you telling to back off?).

I meant no ill intent.  However, it has been my experience here on Newsvine that people frequently label people based on small portions of their post.  I was telling people that would be inclined to call me racist or anti-gay or whatever else that I'm not.  That's it.  Perhaps it was a little over the top but I just wanted to make sure that everyone understand that I am supportive of hate crime legislation.

Thank you for your comment though, the link is a really good story.

Regardless of the intent of the two men who murdered Matthew Shepard in this case, I do not understand why (and no one has ever been able to explain to me) hate crimes against gay people are not considered a hate crime. Although at the same time, even if the primary motive was robbery in the Shepard case, that is a lot of excessive brutality and force if they just wanted to rob him. It's at least enough to make me question that robbery was the only real motive.

Nonetheless, I still don't understand how Bush justified not putting homosexuality on the hate crimes list. I don't understand at all.

People get indignant about that sort of thing because, whether you like it / want it to or not, it will legitimize the beliefs and perceptions of homophobes. It's a similar premise to suggesting that a rape victim was responsible for having been raped. There is no excuse for such behavior, which is very commonly visited upon certain groups within society. It may be as you say, but it has taken on a life of its own, if that is indeed the case; the Matthew Shepard murder has so much more social and cultural significance than a drug-related robbery involving college kids, and it should be regarded as such. The biggest issue here is what the case has come to represent, and how to overcome the bigotry that leads to such occurences, not whether or not the case that has come to represent that goal was solely based on his sexuality.

By the by, your gay friend does not speak for all gay people, just as a straight person does not accurately represent the views of all straight people. For a person of a dominant group to suggest as much, implicitly or explicitly, is an act of privilege.