***UPDATE 3***Please read all of the comments before you post - we're covering a lot of old territory with new comments, and my goal for these projects is to make them a real conversation. So see what other people have talked about before you post, and then take that into consideration in your own comments.
**UPDATE 2**
Please stick very closely to the questions below. There are all kinds of discussions one could have about the ethical issues raised by this film, and there's value in having those discussions. But if we're all going off in different directions, it's impossible to pursue any one question in depth, and that's what I want to do.
In particular, please refrain from sharing your religious affiliation and the beliefs of your particular branch of that religion. It does not help to elucidate the questions raised below, and will have a strong tendency to throw us off track in discussions. Remember what we learned in the Euthyphro.
**UPDATE**
Please stick very closely to the questions below. There are all kinds of discussions one could have about the ethical issues raised by this film, and there's value in having those discussions. But if we're all going off in different directions, it's impossible to pursue any one question in depth, and that's what I want to do.
In particular, please refrain from sharing your religious affiliation and the beliefs of your particular branch of that religion. It does not help to elucidate the questions raised below, and will have a strong tendency to throw us off track in discussions. Remember what we learned in the Euthyphro.
**UPDATE**
Don't forget to sign your name to your post! I have more than one class at a time posting to various blogs, wikis, and whatnot, and my elderly brain cannot keep track of everyone's handle. Put at least your first name and last initial so I can record your grade.
Please post your response to one of the questions below by Saturday, October 9, at 8 a.m. Then respond to 1 of your colleagues by Monday, October 11 at 8 a.m. Your comments should be substantive and thoughtful. Try to elaborate on your ideas, and explain why you think about things the way you do.
I can't find transcripts from McKinney's trial online; here's a story about the defense from the New York Times.
image published by Xnatedawgx under a creative commons attribution/share alike license
- Many people were particularly upset that Matthew Sheperd was murdered because he was gay. Do you think there's something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics (like their race, ethnicity, gender) rather than, say, because you got in a fight over something with them? Why or why not?
- What ideas and assumptions do you think the young men had, that made them react the way they did to Matthew?
I can't find transcripts from McKinney's trial online; here's a story about the defense from the New York Times.
image published by Xnatedawgx under a creative commons attribution/share alike license
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePlease finish watching the film before you do the forum.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am answering question #1.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think there is something particularly bad about a crime that is aimed at someone because of some inherent characteristic rather than because of something that they may have provoked because of their actions. Neither is excusable, of course – a brutal beating or murder is horrific no matter who the victim is. The loss to an individual, and their loved ones, is equally tragic; one human life is no more or less valuable in that regard.
However the crime (often dubbed a “hate crime”) is different, even if the loss is equivalent, when it targets an individual because of who they are. I believe this is especially true if who they are is a member of a persecuted or discriminated-against group, i.e. people of color, women, gays, lesbians, disabled, etc.
When someone in a persecuted group is targeted for a crime, because of who they are, it sends a loud message to other members of whatever group or groups they belong to. It sends a message that they should be afraid to be who they are, lest they suffer a similar fate; it sends a message that they should fall in line with some spoken or unspoken way of being that suits the mainstream, or at least the perpetrator’s idea of the mainstream. In addition, if the public does not clearly condemn the “hate” part of a “hate crime,” if they are complacent, or worse yet dismissive, it sends the additional message that the general public is more or less okay and accepting of this sort of persecution of people because of who they are. This sort of thing is oppressive to members of the group. It perpetuates the discrimination that they currently suffer. In a society where we champion “equality for all” as an ideal, I think that any crime that goes against this basic principle is a larger crime than the same physical act perpetrated for non-hate reasons.
In short, the reason I think that the there is something worse about a “hate crime” than a regular crime is because of the number of people affected – the number of victims. Much like terrorism, in a “hate crime”, the victim of the crime, intentionally or otherwise, is not just the person who suffered the immediate physical consequences. It is every member of the group.
--Kimberly J.
I think there is something particularly bad about crime when it is aimed at someone because of their inherit characteristics rather than crime that is provoked because hate crimes against the person’s inherit characteristics challenges nature itself. Inherit characteristics are characteristics the person is born with—traits that is embedded in their DNA before the person is born; it is a preset trait that cannot be altered by decision alone. Therefore, inherit characteristics are natural. To commit a crime towards a person because of inherit characteristics means to commit a crime because the perpetrator dislikes the given natural characteristic itself. The perpetrator is going against the natural. The perpetrator is going against a characteristic that the victim cannot choose to have.
ReplyDeleteWhereas, to commit a crime because of being provoked is based on a person’s decision to own a habit, choose an action, or believe in something. To fight over the “something” is based on someone opposing the other’s action, decision, or belief. And to complete that action, make that decision, or believe that idea is a choice a person makes, whereas to have an inherit characteristic is not a choice. Therefore, the perpetrator can commit a crime because an opposition of “something” and with desire to change that “something” can be changed whereas the perpetrator who commit an inherit characteristic-based crime is particularly bad because that “something” of disagreement cannot of be changed (cannot change an inherit characteristic).
No basis exist for the hate crime against nature other than “just because” that the perpetrator does not like the inherit characteristic. It is particularly bad to commit a crime where the victim cannot choose to provoke. That is saying the perpetrator commit the crime because nature made the victim that way—a “wrong” way. I believe the severity of the crime is primarily based on the ability to make a choice. To hurt someone because that victim cannot choose to be the “something” that caused the attack makes the crime especially bad.
-Priscilla Chen
Heavens, you guys are on fire! What a great start - thanks for setting the bar high :-)
ReplyDeleteAnswering question # 1
ReplyDeleteI think that it is particularly bad when crime is aimed to someone because of their race ethnicity, gender ect.. Because in my point of you there is a lot of discrimination and people always judge other people because of there inherent characteristics. There is a lot of hate in this world, hate between one another and especially towards people with inherent characteristics, several of these people are not accepted by the community and they live knowing that they will be judge and discriminated by every one else. I don’t think is right to kill some one because of these characteristics, several are born like this and its not their fault.
In the film, “The Laramie Project” it was clear that Matthew shepherd was murdered because he was gay and he was not accepted by many. I think its sad and cruel how people with inherent characteristics can be discriminated and hated by others. Just because a person is different from the rest is not right to treat them a different way from everyone else with so much hate. And there has been a lot of news how people with inherent characteristics have been picked on and killed just because of their gender, or because they are gay or lesbian and even their color of skin. I think every one is equal and everyone should be treated the same regardless of their inherent characteristics.
Lilian G.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.I think there is something particularly bad about crime when it aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics because the way I see in our community, there are so many people who judge other by their inherent characteristics and that is how they all started the hatred in our community. People can’t treat other of how they look and what they are. Everyone is different from each other and if that person wants to be gay or lesbian, it is their choice and we should respect that. We can’t be treating different for people who are gay, lesbian, and others, because they have their own living and we shouldn’t be bother of that.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Laramie Project” Matthew Shepherd was murdered because he was gay. That is so not acceptable; you can’t kill people because he is different from others. He has his own life and living for it. People really need to respect each other and understand each other. So what if he is gay, he is not harming anybody he was just doing what he has to do. I was sad, disappoint and angry when I saw that he got murder. He didn’t do anything to harm them, why people can’t understand that in this universe people born and they born in their way and different from others, and you can’t just pick on those who are different from others and start bulling them and murder, That is so unfair for those people. I think people really need and have to stop discriminating on others by their inherent characteristic and starts to treat them equally..
Tenzin Y.
Hey all,
ReplyDeleteKeep it coming, good job so far! If you're answering question 1 and saying you do think hate crimes are particularly bad, try to be sure you're saying not just that hate crimes are bad, but why you think they're worse than murders for other reasons (like, say, murder in the course of a robbery).
Will Mohring
ReplyDelete"..based on the answers so far it looks like Im gonna take alot of heat"
Post to Ques 1
I find this to be a bit of an odd question since there is something particularly bad about every crime whether or not the motive is based on the inherent characteristics of its victim. Whether it is robbery, burglary, assault, battery, vandalism, or murder it is the crime itself that is particularly bad. What makes these acts bad is the fact that they damage personal property or take away your right to life and liberty. Regardless of the motive, a crime is a crime.
Now, that is not to say that I am refusing to acknowledge what a hate crime is. It is quite ridiculous that any crimes are committed based on the fact that someone is black or white, male or female, straight or gay, but this does not make the crime any more significant than one based on other motives. This is also the reason why hate crime legislation doesn’t work.
I would like you to take a minute and think of it this way. Your son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. is murdered because the perpetrator wanted a gold watch they were wearing. Your relative is dead, and you are left to deal with the grief and the trial. Now imagine that the judge sentences the perpetrator to 20 years in the penitentiary. He then sites that the reason for the short sentence is that a life sentence or the death penalty is reserved only for hate crimes because they are PARTICULARLY BAD.
So in conclusion the fact that such an ignorant motives lead people to commit crimes is insidious, but it does not make the act any more egregious just because of its motive. It is important to remember that a murder is a murder, a rape is a rape, and a robbery is a robbery; and that ALL MOTIVES to commit these acts are “particularly bad.”
In response to Tenzin Y, Oct 08 at 11:22 pm:
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you explain that it is very bad to kill someone because of his/her inherent traits. If a person is born in a certain ethnicity, or race then it not his fault or he is not to be blamed for it. Similarly, if a person chose to live a life as homosexual, that’s his decision. No one has anything to do with it. We get really annoyed when someone gets into our business because we never gave right to other people to interfere in our life for what we are. Correspondingly, if a person is different from us in some way, it doesn’t mean he is bad. He is distinct but not bad, and doesn’t harm anyone. As you said, it is very sad that Mathew was murdered because he was a gay. It seems ridiculous to me that some people have such a narrow mentality and it is okay for them to kill another human being because they think he is different from them.
Gagan
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBianca Aguilar Answering Number One.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there is something particularly bad about killing some one because of a trait inherited. Now any kind or murder is wrong, losing a loved one hurts everyone the same. But killing them just because of their race, ethnicity, or sexuality is more inhumane that for a fight of some sort. Many of those traits aren't our fault so why should we be punished for what we couldn't help. Now many people believe that being homophobic is that of being crazy, or just a dirty phase. Our sexuality isn't something that grows over night it's a feeling that we have in us from birth, some people are just more open, and sooner then others. But no matter what we are, no one should feel threatened. If a person is gay/lesbian/bisexual/ or straight, so be it.
These people live their lives day by day, they are all just striving for what we all want, a long happy life with love. So why should we stand in their way, just because they like their partners to be their same sex. That is not a good enough reason. They are still humans, just as you, and I. No two people are exactly alike in any way possible. We are all different from one another, so it is inevitable that our sexuality of interest be different as well. But that does not give any one the right to pick at them. I believe that a hate crime is far worse by the majority of people affected. A hate crime does not only affect the people surrounding the victim but all those that belong to a certain group that the victim may reside to. Say the victim was in a group, such as GSA(Gay Straight Alliance), and was an open gay/lesbian/bisexual, if that person was attacked and or murdered then that group may begin to feel threatened, scared, and targeted.
"The Laramie Project" Shows that Matthew Shepherd was robbed Brutally beaten, tied to a fence and murdered because of his sexuality. As the case went on many people protested that they were against homosexuality, that it was a wrongful way of life. But many others fought for Matthew's name and justice. This Documentary showed that we still live in a world with narrow minded people who believe that their way is the only way, well guess what your wrong. If these people are not hurting you in any way, then why not let them be. They don't stand in our way, they don't bother us, so if they choose to be gay/lesbian/bisexual/ or straight then so be it. That is who and what they are and will be no matter who accepts it. This film was really sad to watch, it made me cry, and ticked off the way people reacted, and talked about Matthew, as if he was asking to die because he was gay. I don't comprehend how people can still be so cruel as to think that hurting people because of that is acceptable, because it's not.
People of this world need to see that this is a
new world" a new beginning, so why not start by changing your ways, start a rise to equality for those who are homosexuals and straight people. Why try to take something that we work so hard to achieve away from other just because of their skin, ethnicity, gender, or SEXUAL PREFERENCE. It is not right to do so, nor is it acceptable. So if they are Homosexual, THEN JUST LET THEM BE!
Question 1
ReplyDeleteYes, it is without a doubt wrong to commit a crime against someone because of any inherent characteristics that they might have. I believe that when committing a crime against someone because of their inherent characteristics, it indirectly affects many people, especially those who fall under these same traits. In the movie, we saw that so many people were affected by this crime. They all questioned themselves and each other. The gravity of the crime is much greater because the crime itself wasn’t specifically aimed at an individual but rather an entire group (in this case, the gay community).
The magnitude of a crime aimed toward a person’s inherent characteristics is much greater than that of a crime that did not involve those person’s inherent traits because it can affect different groups of people in addition to the victim. In the case of a murder in the course of a robbery, it is a lot different than a hate crime. The primary reason is that when you kill someone because of his or her inherent characteristics, that particular crime was premeditated. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the course of a robbery, the original intention of the robber was not to kill someone but to instead, rob a bank, so there was no discrimination involved.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThese “hate crimes” teach people that it is not ok to be who you are. It tells people that you need to be what society supposedly wants you to be or to just be part of the “norm.” Every time these crimes are committed, it shows that society is not ready to accept differences. This, in turn, causes people to hide themselves because they think that it is not ok to be who they are. Equality is thought about a lot in society. Many people easily say to treat everyone with respect, but when a hate crime is committed, it says, “treat everyone with respect…except for these people.”
There is no justification whatsoever for any crime that is committed because of a person’s inherent characteristics. The crime was done because the person simply did not like the other person. As sad as it may be, there’s not much that can be done to get rid of hate crimes because there are people out there who just hate certain people. However, I think how a society responds to these crimes can be heavily influential. The more people who show their disdain for these crimes, the more that people know that, while these crimes do happen, it is not ok. Society has to show that they are not myopic when it comes to these types of crimes. I think that’s what the people of Laramie displayed at the end of the movie during the parade.
Jordan Castillo
Response to #1.
ReplyDeleteI do think that it is particularly bad about a crime that is aimed at someone solely based on their inherent characteristics. People are born into their race, ethnicity, gender, etc and they can't change it. To hurt, abuse and even kill people due to their inherent characteristics is unfair. I believe that its better to fight or argue with someone over something is better because its built on who they are as an individual. All crimes are bad regardless of the circumstance though.
We still see this in our society today with stereotyping and prejudice. Many people have yet to accept others for who they are. People hate others that are different and don't understand them. Individuals are pushed into a categories based on their inherent characteristics and this builds animosity among people. I think that the bottom line is that we are all human and therefore, all the same. We shouldn't judge and hurt one another for any reason, especially on things we don't choose.
If people fight, I think it can be justified if it was based on a disagreement they had about something internal and not something they can't change such as their race or sexuality. Many homosexuals state that their sexual preference isn't chosen, its given just like their gender and other inherent characteristics. If Matthew Sheperd had been murdered because he had gotten into a verbal argument with the two boys about something rather than his sexuality, the city of Laramie wouldn't have had this publicity. It was a hate crime and it was wrong because we can see it with people's comments in the movie/documentary.
I'm not saying that acceptable for people to kill if they get into altercations. I simply believe that specific hate crimes towards an individual based on their inherent characteristics in which they were born with is unjustifiable and wrong.
- Solongo Bayarsaikhan.
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteI think there is something particularly bad about this crime which occurred because of inherent characteristics rather regular crime when someone get in fight over something with them.Matthew was nice and friendly.He usually similed to other people. He didn’t create any violences in the Laramie. He was like the other Laramie people, but one day he got murdered by his two friends becasue he was a gay.This crime was not only a crime which regarded as kipnap and murder but also violated the freedom of being who they want. Other gay people might worry for themselves after they heard about Matthew was murdered. This crime was particular bad. Therefore, many people were upset when they heard that Matthew Sheperd was murdered because he was a gay.Here, in the America, everybody has the right to do what they want and to be who they desire as long as it doesn't harm to other people's rights and properties. As a result, people shouldn’t offend on other liberty. Everybody are living in the same earth, so we should be treated equally.
Yen, D
1. I think that it is worse to be beat up for the color of your skin rather than some random argument. Why should someone be punished for something they don’t have a choice for? Who is to say that one color or gender is better than another? People who get into arguments for subjects that don’t pertain to concrete things like skin color are simple because they are just disagreeing on a certain idea. Gender and skin color can’t be altered. I understand that people have been raised to believe that certain races or genders are inferior to others but how is that at all just? No one person can decipher who is better than others. Being beat or even killed for the color of one’s skin is ridiculous. I’m not keen on fighting in general but if people have a disagreement with each other, solely on a non inherent subject, then have at it, but each party must understand what they’re getting into. One can’t just beat up another without notice, settle it in a ring. People don’t get to choose who they are, if a person don’t like them, they still need to be treated with respect, and if one finds even that hard make sure to stay away from that person. I could never see myself murdering someone just because of their race, no one should be able to even think about that. I liked the quote they used frequently in the movie, “live and let live”.
ReplyDelete-Laura
1. I believe that it is worst for people to beat someone up for a hate crime. A hate crime is when someone beats someone up because they hate something about them. That could mean anything from race to what sex they prefer to date. People who perform the hate crimes don’t really have to right to beat someone over things that they don’t have any control over. Not only do they not have any control over it but who has the right to say they are better than the other person. No one has the right to say they are better just because the other person is different. Having a fight on impulse is completely different than a hate crime. It’s more of two people getting caught in the moment and feel that they have to fight to sort whatever it is out. Most people that fight on impulse don’t take it as far as people take it during a hate crime fight. During a fight most people will stop after someone gets knocked out or knocked to the ground but during a hate crime the attacks don’t care about the other person so it turns out worse. No one has the right to harm someone over issues that they don’t have control over. I never could hurt someone just because I didn’t like something about them but I would be able to fight someone over an impulse action. –Cameron Padilla
ReplyDeletehardyal #1
ReplyDeleteI think crime is bad in general regardless if it was done as robbery and somebody get killed or hurt.But in this case matthew Sheperd was kill because he was gay.His attackers attacked and killed him because he was gay.I would therefore call this a hate crime because when somebody gets killed as a result of inherent characteristics such as race,gender or ethnicity without any intention to rob them of valuables except for their life it shows that they were out kill because of their views of sexual preference.Thou i am not a supporter of gay and lesbians i think everybody in america has freedom of choice without fear of being killed.My conclusion i would say that they should be stricker laws pass to prosecuted propertrators of such crime.Hardyal
Yes, I do think there is something particularly bad about crime when it is aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics. What separates a hate crime from say a crime that occurs because you got in a fight over something is that one is random while the other done because of a specific characteristic. When a hate crime takes place the person is attacked for something that is a part of who they are as a person. Both are equally terrible, but they are different because one is done to the person because of who they are, rather than a person being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or both being involved in the fight.
ReplyDeleteTake for example, World War II, in which Hitler ordered the genocide of Jews. The only reason he had for killing all these men, women, and children was because of who they were and what they believed in; something in which they had no control over. Another example of a hate crimes would be, crimes that are carried out by the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy group. These crimes are aimed specifically towards people that are not white, a specific characteristic that cannot be controlled. Or hate crimes aimed towards people that are gay, like the one in the movie. That is why these crimes are so terrible; these are human beings that are hated because of how they are born.
Hate crimes are different from crimes that could happen to anyone. For example, the mass murder that took place at Columbine High School, these kids were killed randomly, shot for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Another example, being people who are robbed when they are on the bus or walking home, they are the target of a crime, but there is no reason behind except that the robber wanted the person’s belongings.
Terrible crimes occur every day to people, but hate crimes stand out because the reason why the crime occurred had to do with a characteristic that person had. The person was attacked for being themselves it was not just a random act that could have happened to anyone. A crime is bad no matter what type of crime it is or who the victim of the crime was, but when a crime takes place because of an inherent characteristic it changes how we view the crime, because instead of having victim based on their belongings you have a victim targeted for something that they cannot just give up or have taken away from them. There is nothing tangible they have that they can give you.
Ashley F.
I believe there’s something particularly bad about a crime when it’s aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics rather than because of their acquired characteristics because regardless of whether people like or dislike them, inherent characteristics are things people cannot change about themselves. Inherent characteristics are things that people are born with. If someone were to commit a crime on another person because of an inherent characteristic, the person committing the crime is saying that he or she dislikes who the other person is intrinsically or that there is something “wrong” with who the other person is intrinsically. The person who is being victimized cannot choose to rid him or herself of this characteristic that is creating dispute. Crimes against a person because of an inherent characteristic also send the message that others who carry that inherent characteristic are also “wrong.”
ReplyDeleteAcquired characteristics aren't things that people are born with, they are things that are obtained. A person can choose to obtain a particular acquired characteristic, they could choose not to obtain a particular acquired characteristic, or they could choose to change a particular acquired characteristic. If disputes were to arise because of an acquired characteristic, the person with the characteristic can change or get rid of it. However, if disputes were to arise because of an inherent characteristic, the person with the characteristic cannot change or get rid of it.
Crimes committed against another person because of their inherent characteristics are especially bad because the victim of the crime cannot change their inherent characteristics. People with inherent characteristics do not have the choice of changing their characteristics whereas people with acquired characteristics do have the choice of changing their characteristics. Committing crimes against people due to something they can’t change is worse than committing crimes against people due to something they can change because there is the decision of choice.
- Kristi Phan
Question 1;
ReplyDeleteNo matter how you slice it, crime is unacceptable and should not be condoned under under any circumstance. However, crimes motivated by hate are in particular more heinous for among others, the following reasons; A.) hate crimes are not motivated by lust, gain nor greed but purely for the discriminatory reasons of inherent characteristics deeming them in many ways irrational and B.) hate crimes arguably impact the community in a more deeper and emotional sense than other crimes.
A.) To neccessarily reiterate what many of us have pointed out, hate crime victims are targeted because of the core and inate characterisrics of their identity and or genetic makeup (ie, religion, race, sex, disability or sexual orientation.) Many of these elements such as race, sex and disability cannot be changed. Commiting a hate crime is particulary worse than a crime not motivated by hate because it is irrational. Having certain opinions towards a particular person is human nature. Having hatred towards a select group of people ad then violating their inalienable rights is not. Although it isn't just, murder based on lust or greed is more rational than hatred in the sense that atleast something is gained; money, a lover, revenge etc..In contrast to murder based solely on hate only gains a lost life, such as Matthew Shepard's.
B.) Hate crimes cause community un-rest. Community members sharing such attributes of someone victimized in a hate crime can often be left feeling vulnerable, fearful and powerless. As depicted in "The Laramie Project" we witnessed some these emotions in the LGBT community after Shepard's death; while some were strong and used the tragedy as an outlet to "come out"and show pride, others were scared and stayed secluded. There was also an obvious sign of tension in Laramie as protestors both for and against Shepard divided families and friends, created upheaval in this quiet and otherwise peaceful community. This raises the qustion, if the crime had been based on other motivations, would it have gained an equal amount of local and national attention? I think not. Fortunatly what did not happen out if this tragedy is "copy-cat" " crimes which is'nt so much of a rare occurence after hate crimes have been commited.
"Without hate there would be no crime,
Racism would crumble to dust,
Pessimism would turn to optimism,
War would become obsolete,
Pride would give way to humility in itsdue time,
Self-degradation would become without a doubt totally irrational,
Fear would have no light,
Possibilities would become realities and Love would grow indefinitely"
-Quote from: stop-the-hate.org
Response #2
ReplyDeleteThe death of Matthew Shepherd was very tragic. The real exact reasons as to why he was badly beaten is only known by the two who committed this crime. Many people believe that love should only be between and man and a woman and I think that is where the assumptions come into play. Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson were straight men who I feel were somehow threatened by Matthew Shepherd's presence. Like the bartender said, Matthew was on the other side of the bar away from the two men. One assumption that they probably made was that Matthew Shepherd would approach them in a way that would make them feel uncomfortable. Many people would feel uncomfortable just because of the presence of someone who is gay. But without making assumptions and really getting to know someone who is gay, acts like this can be avoided. They are probably used to seeing the normal relationship between a man and a woman and assumed that being gay was something ridiculously awful. With that assumption made, it would lead to them thinking that all gays are the same and act the way that they did.
When Aaron McKinney was interviewed by the police two days after the beating he was referring Matthew Shepherd as a "fag." A "fag" is a derogatory word that is used against homosexual males. That is one assumption that A. McKinney made about Matthew Shepherd. He assumed that Matthew Shepherd was a "fag", which is such a negative word for describing a person who is gay.
-Marielle Laude
Response to question 1:
ReplyDeleteI think that there is something particularly bad about crime when it is aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics than
getting in a fight over something. No matter to what extent, both are still considered crimes. Though bias-motivated crimes are not sound reasoning, rather it displays inhumanity, insensitivity, and ignorance. The targeted individual is no longer seen as a living being, but a worthless object--destroying the very essence of one's existence. This sends the message of hatred and instills fear in not only just the victim, but also to many different groups of people.
-Thy
In my opinion I think all crimes that inflict some kind pain on to others are not acceptable. This particularly comes into play when it is a hate crime towards someone because of his or her sexual orientation. Who are we to jug a person because he or she likes the same sex; it is not our call to make. A hate crime is a more severe thing because the person the that is being bother could have possible never even done anything to that person but is being harassed because of their inherent characteristics.
ReplyDeleteAre we allow to hate that person because they are gay or lesbian no we should not hold it against them, they are still a human being with similar interest as any other person. Like the saying “Don’t judge a book by it cover, but the contents inside.” What this is trying to tell you don’t judge a person because of their sexual orientation but for the person that they truly are and if you then decide you don’t like that person then so be it as long as it is not for their sexual orientation. In the movie the to boys show that they weren’t willing to get to know Matthew because he was attracted to men and rather but him to death to get the point across to him that they did not approve of his life style. So yes hate crime is more serve then regular crimes but I am not saying those that are committed crimes should be over looked because hate crimes are more sever in most cases.
2. What ideas and assumptions do you think the young men had, that made them react the way they did to Matthew?
ReplyDeleteMatthew Sheppard died in a very tragic way. He was beaten to death, and left in the middle of nowhere to die. Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinley were two young straight men who obviously had a hatred towards homosexuals. My assumption to why they had beaten Sheppard is because they felt threatened and very uncomfortable around him because he was a homosexual. But the bartender had said that Sheppard was sitting away from McKinely and Henderson so he wasn't bothering them at all. I assume that they acted that way towards Sheppard because they were afraid that he would approach them and try to make a move on them, so instead, they made the first move by pretending they were gay, kidnapping him, and beating him to death before he can do anything to them.
Hate crimes like this can be very much avoided and prevented by just walking away. In this case, it's not what happened. It was evident that McKinely certainly didn't like Matthew because he described him as a "fag" and he showed that by beating him to death. Everyone is different and each person has their own preference as to if they like guys or girls, so we should respect their feelings and accept them for the person they truly are inside.
-Catherine Joy Reola
Response to #1
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe there is something wrong with a hate crime compared a regular crime. Hurting someone verbally and physically because race or sexuality is wrong. The two men that hurt Matthew Sheperd did not know him but wanted to hurt him because he was homosexual was wrong. There is a big difference between a hate crime than a regular crime because you hate them base on homosexuality or race and not on the person. Being gay or a certain race doesn't give u a reason to hurt them. How did Matthew Sheperd being gay affect them? It just gets mad how people can't mind their own business really who cares if he's gay let him be. How can someone have so much hate n want to hurt someone just because of his or her race, sexuality and etc? You didn't personally know the guy, didn't know if he was a good guy or not but just judging someone on just being gay is wrong. People should be more open to change n be more comfortable n just accept people who they are and mind they’re own business. Teens are committing suicide for being gay because they are picking on. Society should learn to accept and help people for who they are and help them with their struggles.
Eddie Chantavong
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRespond to Jordan C @12:38 Am on October 9
ReplyDeleteJordan, This crime happened as a message to send to other gay people. It is exactly what you said, "These "hate crime" to teach people it is not ok to be who they are, treat everyone with respect.... except these people." It affects to gay people's life. They are afraid to show off who they are. If so, the gay or lesbian people will loose their freedom because of the society. Besides, there are also groups of people disagree about this hate crime. They stand up and fight for the gay people. This action were displayed on the movie by parade.It sends another message to murders of this type of crime for respecting and protecting of the equalty and liberty.
Yen, D
Response to question #1:
ReplyDeleteWatching the movie, The Laramie Project, made me extremely upset over the incident because I believe it is wrong when a crime is committed because the actions were meant to hurt someone due to their inherited characteristics. It is upsetting to see how much hate people in our society can have towards a particular person over something that neither of them have the ability to decide or can change. Beating someone to the point where they die because of something they provoke is not excusable either. No one has the right to kill anyone, regardless of anything.
Matthew Sheppard was murdered because of his homosexuality. And his case became such a big issue, not only locally but nationally. Its cases like these that make it hard for people like Matthew Shepard to “come out the closet” or in other words be who they really are. Many families are not accepting of their children’s homosexuality, and that makes it hard enough to express who they really are, but when society is reacting this way can lead to even bigger issues. No one should be targeted because of who they really are, since we don’t have the capacity to decide that, or let alone be beaten to death because of that. Cases like these bring about a message and that message lets us know that its not good for people to be themselves, or bring out characteristics that people in our society view as wrong because of their personal beliefs. It’s scary to learn about the type of society that we are living in. Events like these can lead to the suicide of people that don’t fit into the characteristics that are considered “normal”. It’s not fair or right that because a particular group views things in a certain manner that they can cause such actions to occur. They don’t have the right to do that. We live in America were we are free to be whomever we want to be, yet people are being targeted because of their inherited conditions. It’s sad to know that events like these occur in a land where everyone is claimed to be treated equally.
When Matthew Shepard was beaten to death many were affected by it, not only family and friends. This shows to us the type of society that we live in; however, I believe that when a crime is aimed at someone because of their inherited characteristics is worse than when that same crime occurs because of their actions. We all have the right to express who we really are. And that gives no one the right to commit a crime against us.
Will, interesting points, and I hope some people respond so that the *whole* list isn't all agreeing with one another!
ReplyDeleteOne thing, though: if a victim is killed during the course of a robbery, it automatically becomes "felony murder" in most jurisdictions in the U.S. That means that, regardless of whether you killed the person by accident while robbing him, you're guilty of first degree murder (the basic idea, although it's more complex than this, is that by intending an inherently risky crime, you also intended any foreseeable consequence of the crime). It's also often a capital crime (a death penalty case). So the crime in your scenario would also carry an enhanced sentence, not a lighter sentence.
Response to Will Mohring
ReplyDeleteI agree with the following statement: "What makes these acts bad is the fact that they damage personal property or take away your right to life and liberty." A crime a lot of times is considdered bad when a person is is killed and the reasons for it. What happened to Matthew Shepard was wrong. It shows the type of society in which we live in. And the way people think. This makes me it hard for people to be themselves because they are living in a society where there risking their life if there true identity come sout and thats wrong. All motives to commit these crimes are bad, like it was stated in the last paragraph.
Will Mohring
ReplyDelete**In Response to – Cameron Padilla
(To generalize, this may also serve as a response to a lot of posts)
When we say something is “particularly bad,” it implies that we view it as worse than the alternative. It is also important to understand that the question is asking us to comment on the crime and not the motive itself. So to start, I would like to comment on a little line for line from some of Cameron’s post.
“I believe that it is worst (sic) for people to beat someone up for a hate crime.”
***I would like to ask what makes the CRIME ITSELF worse. Is one victim more injured than the other? Does one family hurt more than the other?
“People who perform hate crimes don’t really have [the] right to beat someone over things that they don’t have any control over.”
*** I would argue that NO ONE has the right to beat anyone for any reason. Nobody has a right to beat you to death because you are gay, just as nobody has the right to beat you to death because they want the contents of your wallet.
Look, Professor Boyle warned us that it would be very easy to get off topic in this forum, and she was right. In fact, I would dare to say that most of the posts veer off topic. We are supposed to be commenting on whether the CRIME is particularly bad, and most of us are commenting on how the MOTIVE is particularly bad. And when it comes to the argument over the motive being particularly bad, I agree with all of you. But unfortunately I think most of us have let our emotions guide these responses and take them off topic of the actual crime itself.
I would never want to hear that a crime is not “as bad” because the motivation was not hate. If anyone in my family or group of friends was killed for a motive other than hate, I would want to know that they are subject to the same penalties and justice as all murders – regardless of motive.
#1
ReplyDeleteYes I do think there's something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone, because a hate crime is something deliberate to create fear for an entire group of people based on their different characteristics such as race, sex, religion, and sexuality. When some other crime has been committed such as because of a fight, cheating etc. it isn’t as shocking to people because these are typical crimes that many people expect can happen, but a crime such as this is shocking because it isn’t the usual type of crime and it hits home for a lot of individuals So the extent of a crime intended and aimed for a specific reason such as hatred is a lot greater than any typical crime because it affects a wide range of individuals. Many people would like to believe they are safe and can be whoever they want to be without being judged but when something like this happens people begin to second guess there self and that’s why in the movie some individuals were uncomfortable with identifying themselves as homosexual. So with a crime like this you cannot categorize it as the equivalent to any other crime you can just see how much it has affected many individuals across the nation, now that tells you something.
Joann P.
In response to Jordan C.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that a murder inn a hate crime is premeditated, and one in a crime such as a robery is not, I agree, with the way you phrase it. As many of us stated ANY MURDER is wrong, and the pain of losing some one is the same. But It is true that when it is caused because of one's race, gender, or sexuality, it is seen as an attack on everyone else that is of that community. The magnitude of the peoplpe aaffected is much higher. Now i'm not saying that the consequences for the guilty party should be any different, but that was not the question, the reason for the murder was just particularly bad. Jordan stated that
"These “hate crimes” teach people that it is not ok to be who you are. It tells people that you need to be what society supposedly wants you to be or to just be part of the “norm.” "
And that is true, A hate crime attacks the people who have the same "inherited trait" as the victim. And that is really bad, many then feel like they have to hide who they are, and that's not right. No one should have to live hidding or live in shame. It affects many people across the world, not just where the crime happened. So the murder was a murder but it is worse when it is cause by sexuality, or reasons of that sort.
Bianca A.
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteMany people were particularly upset that Matthew Sheperd was murdered because he was gay. Do you think there's something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics (like their race, ethnicity, gender) rather than, say, because you got in a fight over something with them? Why or why not?
Answer:
I do think it's particularly wrong to do a crime against another person for their inherent characteristics; and for two reasons.
1. My first reason is that when someone has done wrong to you, there's a reason to be upset. Of course no one has a right to kill or hurt another person at any point in time (unless it's self-deffense) but at least there's a valid reason.
2. The inherent characteristics that every individual has are characteristics that they cannot change. People can't help it if they're black, asian, fat, tall, gay, straight, etc. So, to do a crime against another for those types of reasons are inexcusable; they're just pure hatred.
Hurting another person for their inherent characteristics whether it be based on religion, gender, race, etc., rather than because they did a wrong to you whether it be stealing your ipod or whatever it is that they did displays pure hatred toward the person for what they cannothelp. There's no excuse for it, nor can it be validated.
Responding to Bianca Aguilar.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that with Bianca that it is particularlywrong to kill someone due to their inherent characteristics. We definitely should leave them alone, ESPECIALLY if you are someone who has a particular dislike for that trait(s).
I don’t think there is anything extra bad about a crime just because the person was gay. The question mentions “because you got in a fight over something with them?”. I think the fact that someone is gay IS what the fight is about. They don’t deserve special treatment more than anyone else. The growing idea is that “all people are equal” etc, if that is true, then gays should not get special treatment just because they are homosexual. They get the same treatment as anyone else, that is absolutely how it should be.
ReplyDeleteWhat Aaron Mckinney and Russell Henderson did was bad, don’t get me wrong, but this whole idea of “hate crime” is not right. ANY crime is really a hate crime, there shouldn’t be a special category. This means that if I ever get seriously beaten up, I could just tell the court I’m gay and that’s why the guy beat me up, and bam, the offender is so totally screwed. That isn’t right.
The same goes for race, gender, ethnicity, religion, anything. People are people, and nobody, NOBODY, should get special treatment because of who they are. Even if someone comes out on top because of it, this idea in itself is discrimination! I get that people based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, lifestyles, gender, and lots of other things have been discriminated against in the past, and to an extent still are. Some may say that what I am saying is discriminatory. But it is not. I am simply saying that they are playing the pity card too much. While they may deserve some SYMPATHY for the past, that shouldn’t go so far as to create entire laws just specially for them.
I often hear gays saying things like “we are just like everyone else”, but yet they want special treatment! Fights and altercations often happen over a problem someone has with another person. If someone steals something from me, or insults me in some way, I might fight him. While wrong, this is normally understood. Why can’t the problem I have with him be the fact that he is gay? If he wants to be accepted in society, he has deal with the fact that some people are not going to like him.
In response to this, someone may ask something like “If all traits are genuinely equal, then why is it different to be angry with someone over a trait he or she has, rather than something he or she has done?” What they have done is choose to act gay. I’m understanding, I get that you cannot help who you are. But what you CAN do, is help how you act. If they want to be like everyone else, they need to act like it. That is for gay people however. I get that black people can’t choose to not be black, its just who they are. Same goes for any sort of race or ethnicity or gender. But they still shouldn’t get special laws. They RELY on these, and they often use them to gain an unfair advantage, not just to protect themselves. This has gone on too long. They can work harder to fit in to society on their own!
It's very hard to determine if a crime was really motivated by hatred of the person's race, ethnicity, gender, etc, but yet courts still do it. People get unlucky all the time. They got in a fight with someone and won, and just by bad luck it turns out that person was gay or something like that. They should be punished for the fight and the injury, not for the thoughts behind it.
-David Brosius
Response to Laudemarielle # 2
ReplyDeleteI agree that love should be between man and woman. Because of this reason or other reasons that we don’t know; that is why both men murdered Metthew. The thing is that in the U.S individual has one’s own right, people have freedom of speech so they have a choice for their life as long as they don’t harm any body .They can be heterosexual or homosexual person depends on what they want to be. Matthew did not do any harm to both men besides just being a gay man. If both men do not like him, they should walk away from him, don’t murder him. Both men might have thought that they did the right thing, but in public eyes they did the wrong thing. Is it the virtue for these men action? Did both men pursue happiness? I would not think so. May be in their mind they felt happy because they intimidated gay people to stop being gays or because they can eliminate at least one gay man from this world. Above all, hate crime is world wide epidemic. It is not just happened in the U.S, it is happened in every country. How can it be stopped or reduced this kind of crime? If individuals in social groups respect one to another, know one own right, and the government enforces the law on hate crime, it would be reduced some if not one hundred percent.
Sunheng E.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI do not find that this question is odd in anyway. To label all crimes on an equal basis
lacks the regards on motives and MOST importantly Rationality. For example, a McDonald's worker got fired because she gave a colleague a free cheese slice on a Burger. Citing that, "McDonald's claimed she had broken the rules, which prohibit any free gifts to family, friends or colleagues." Do you agree that this is frivolous? "Regardless of a motive a crime is a crime." Do you believe that a judge's mentality aligns with yours? Then why is there First, Second and Third Degree murder, or involuntary man slaughter? Why, because it deals with motives/premeditated murder/crime of passions bottom line, motive. A crime is a crime, however, some crimes are bad than others! Hence I believe this question is not odd.
In addition, that is why cops have something called, "discretion." Is a cop going to give you a ticket for speeding to the hospital? If you agree, then I seriously recommend you look up the incident with a football player and his step mom. If you disagree then all crimes are not crimes regardless of motives.
Hate crime legislation does not work solely because of the First Amendment. Period.
Again your conclusion, robbery is robbery? What about grand thief vs petty thief - One is particularly more bad that the other.
All motives of crimes are bad? So if ALL motives are bad then our fight for Independence from Britain was Bad.
My stance on hate crime is this, it is premeditated. Kind of like first degree murder. So it is particularly bad.
Will,
ReplyDeleteHey do not tell students they are going off topic. Let the Professor decide. Also to Cameron Padilla she is not at all off topic, for you to tell her that, and to back it up will little substances is audacious.
In response to you.
"Look, Professor Boyle warned us that it would be very easy to get off topic in this forum, and she was right. In fact, I would dare to say that most of the posts veer off topic. We are supposed to be commenting on whether the CRIME is particularly bad, and most of us are commenting on how the MOTIVE is particularly bad. And when it comes to the argument over the motive being particularly bad, I agree with all of you. But unfortunately I think most of us have let our emotions guide these responses and take them off topic of the actual crime itself."
MOTIVES are CRUCIAL! Again First, Second and Third degree murder are all the same Will? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Really? Hmmmmm?...
Listen guy commenting on a motive of a crime if it is particularly bad is the MOST rational objective to take.... Go ask a judge or a lawyer. hmmm
@ Will: I can see what you mean about crime in terms of the word itself. As social animals, what sets us apart from others is human essence
ReplyDelete(self-awareness, reason, language, emotions, etc.). Therefore, according to Aristotle, we have potential such as solving problems,
interacting with people on an emotional level, and so forth.
Part of being human, we all have made mistakes. When it comes to judging something, it is necessary to consider the context and content. For instance, "lying"--is it a crime? Otherwise, imagine how many people
would be imprisoned.
Someone's inherent characteristics (race, gender, ethnicity) does not pose an actual threat to others. The perpetrator may find pleasure but no pain in committing a hate crime. Hate crimes are extreme noticeably
for it lacks substance and exhibits remorselessness. Whereas the perpetrator may find pleasure and pain in "fighting over something". However, to get in a fight over something is unclear--What about fighting for freedom?
Response to: Gagan, g_deol October 8, 2010 10:50 PM
ReplyDeleteIn your response, there is no doubt that Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney harbored a strong hatred towards homosexuals. However, I do not necessarily believe that their society completely rejected homosexuality or that the society was stereotypical about it. In fact, I believe that their society held a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. For example, the old farmer couple claimed that they did not support homosexuality because they do not condone sexuality, but they did were not especially hostile towards the topic itself. In addition, they said that if you do not claim that you are a homosexual, there would be no beat down. The mechanic, the female police officer, and the officer’s mother all did not display a hostile attitude toward homosexuals. Rather, it seemed to be a taboo to talk about homosexuality because they were uncomfortable with it, not because they rejected or condoned homosexuality. In addition, the priest felt that Matthew Sheppard himself was a good kid—regardless of Matthew’s sexuality. For Henderson and McKinney to act so violently towards Matthew, there had to be a deeper reason for their actions. Yes, they were definitely uncomfortable with Matthew’s sexuality, but why act so violently? I believe they had ulterior ideas and assumptions.
Various reasons can lead to homophobia. For example, Henderson and McKinney could have simply lacked acceptance of differences among people. Also, they might have felt that homosexuality violated the traditional gender-role norms; therefore they felt that Matthew challenged their masculinity and Henderson and McKinney had to defend their masculinity. The fact that one of the attackers had a child at an early age probably exacerbated the need to protect his masculinity. In addition, the most taboo and shocking reason that can lead to homophobia is when one attempts to hide homosexual feelings within oneself. There are a million reasons that can cause Henderson and McKinney to violently attack Matthew Sheppard, only they will know their own reasons and pay for their actions.
-Priscilla Chen
@ Priscilla
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you state that you believe that "the severity of the crime is primarily based on the ability to make a choice. To hurt someone because that victim cannot choose to be the “something” that caused the attack makes the crime especially bad."Who are we to choose the destiny of someone when we our self don't know the destiny of ourselves. Who are we to raise hell in someone life because of their sexual orientation. We should live our lives and not worry about others and to accept people for who they are and be happy with it.
Response to Solongo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the points solongo has made in his argument on why a crime aimed at someone for a specific reason is worse than any other crime. People should be allowed to live their lives however they want and should not be judged or harassed for that. People should not have to change who they are or their happiness for others. Our society does play a big role on how we view others from, race, sexuality, religion etc. Many people judge others before even getting to know them and if you stand out or are misunderstood than most likely will most likely want nothing to do with you. Just as solango stated “I'm not saying that acceptable for people to kill if they get into altercations. I simply believe that specific hate crimes towards an individual based on their inherent characteristics in which they were born with is unjustifiable and wrong.” All crimes are unacceptable but since the crime committed was solely because of Matthew’s sexuality I believe it should be taken to a higher degree since it affects a wide range of people as a whole.
Okay, all, no need to yell at each other :-) Disagreement is awesome, let's all disagree very, very politely.
ReplyDeleteThy, intriguing comments in your response. I'd love to see you develop that further - fill it out a bit so we can see your reasoning in more detail.
ReplyDelete@Will Mohring:
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with what you said in your post.
“Your relative is dead, and you are left to deal with the grief and the trial. Now imagine that the judge sentences the perpetrator to 20 years in the penitentiary. He then sites that the reason for the short sentence is that a life sentence or the death penalty is reserved only for hate crimes because they are PARTICULARLY BAD.”
That statement especially stood out to me, because when I imagine myself in that situation, I feel horrible.
Not only are “ALL MOTIVES to commit these crimes particularly bad”, you can never truly know what goes on in someone elses head. It is wrong for the courts and judges to assume these things.
If someone murders someone gay, he should be given the same sentence as if the person was straight, or vice versa.
Also, @Anon’s response to Will:
Don’t be hypocritical. If the teacher doesn’t like Will saying someone is off topic, she will say so. You aren’t the teacher either.
Also, you are saying things like “Go ask a judge or Lawyer”. I think we all have at least a general idea about how things ARE. The question was on our views and reasons of WHY we think what we think, not about HOW things necessarily ARE.
Perhaps you should read the question again so you can better understand what is being asked before you offer useless criticism?
-David Brosius
Will Mohring
ReplyDeleteWow! Look what I started. In all seriousness though, let's all calm it down just a bit. These are only opinions. We all have them and we all have our reasons for having them. We can talk more about our reasoning in class on Tuesday.
(apologies if this posts more than once - the blog is giving me problems)
ReplyDeleteResponse to Will and David B:
I find it interesting that the two people in the class who don’t find a crime against people because of an inherent trait to be particularly bad are both young, white, males. It makes me wonder if you recognize your privilege for what it is. You both have the luxury of living in the USA and not having brown skin, ovaries, visible handicaps, or sexual orientations that differ from the majority (I presume). Tone is hard to convey in written communication, so please be aware that I am genuinely curious/wondering if you realize/recognize that you are coming from a place of privilege, and perhaps you are looking at this from a very ethnocentric stance.
I applaud you both for the concept that everyone should be treated equally – I agree with that general principle! However, there are two points that neither of you seem to take into consideration, or take as important – please correct me if I’m wrong:
1. What is ideal, is sadly not yet realized reality in today’s world. There are historical persecutions, many of which continue today, in which many people are NOT treated equally, based on who they are. The idea of legislation for “hate crimes” isn’t to give some special “perq” to minorities/special groups – it’s to redress the balance until such time as reality reflects our stated ideals. If we can’t stop hate crimes from happening, we can’t possibly recognize true equality in our society.
2. There is not just a single victim in a “hate crime.” The victimization extends to members of the community to which the victim belongs. People in that group have many of their rights impinged by fear when another member suffers from a hate crime. It’s all well and good to SAY that you can pursue happiness like everyone else, but if you’re afraid of being beat up because of it, you really aren’t quite as free. The crime is larger because the scope of the victim(s) is larger.
(cont)
ReplyDeleteWill, you said “I would like you to take a minute and think of it this way. Your son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. is murdered because the perpetrator wanted a gold watch they were wearing. Your relative is dead, and you are left to deal with the grief and the trial.”
Of course this is a horrible thing for any family or friend of a victim to go through. But imagine that in addition to your own grief, most of the people at the funeral also are afraid for their own safety, because of the crime that was committed. That is the reality when someone is a victim of a hate crime. A lynching, gay-beating, or similar does not affect only the victim and their close loved ones – it affects entire communities. Motives do matter – even if they aren’t always provable.
While I disagree with both of you, I am glad that there was an opportunity to flesh some of this out because of your viewpoints which were both in opposition to the majority. I hope you’re both open to looking deeper into the issue and exploring some of the other ideas people have presented.
--Kimberly J
In response to Will Mohring
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned both crime and motive being two different things, but aren’t they both related? Hate crimes refer to motivation. I think most people here are saying that the crime is “particularly bad” because the motive itself was bad. No one is saying that one life is more valuable than another, but when you’re attacking someone because of any inherent characteristics, it is inevitably going to affect pretty much everyone within that community.
Now you’re probably thinking “why should one particular group of people be more protected than another?” If you think about it, no one is being more protected than someone else. Let’s take Matthew Shepard as an example but twist it around. What if Matthew Shepard and his friends beat Aaron McKinney because he was straight? Is this crime any more or less severe?
Just so all heat isn’t directed toward you; I do see where you’re coming from. You’re basically saying, “why is motivation A more important than motivation B when it all comes down to the fact that a crime is a crime?” But it’s these specific examples that should be avoided because in the case of hate-crime laws, (or laws in general) laws need to be general or else things become too difficult. This is all just food for thought, but I think you showed the opposing points very well.
Jordan Castillo
@Kimberly
ReplyDeleteI had the same problem with the blog. I think if you're comment is too large, it won't post so i split my comment into 2 parts. This goes to everyone else.
Yo, what did I say? No personal insults - criticize ideas without criticizing the people putting them forward!
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that several people use the idea that inherent characteristics make a victim “not to blame,” or “they can’t help it,” and therefore that is what makes a hate crime so bad. I wonder at the underlying meaning of this, however. This implies that victims are sometimes to blame – which is a dangerous concept to give credibility to.
ReplyDeleteHopefully I can clarify my point with an example:
Let’s put aside a crime of passion, where two people have gotten into an altercation, and there may be some provocation (or reasonable “blame”) involved. Let’s instead talk about a white man being beaten to death in the course of a robbery compared to a gay man being beaten to death because of the fact that he is gay. Both men are dead. The physical cause is the same. I think, or at least I hope, that we can agree that neither victim holds an ounce of blame for the fact that he was made to be a victim.
If you accept this, then it isn’t “blamelessness” that makes a hate crime particularly bad.
So for those of you who took that tack, I would be interested in your further thoughts about why you find a hate crime to be particularly bad.
--Kimberly
The above was not meant for Jordan or Kimberly, who are being perfectly civil :-)
ReplyDeleteSo, let's think about what Will's comment opens up from another direction. The dispute (at least over who's missing the point of the question) comes down to exactly how we think about what constitutes the crime:
1. If I'm reading him correctly, Will (and maybe David) is/are regarding the crime very narrowly, in terms of just the particular series of actions taken immediately during the perpetration of the crime. So, if we're asking about the damage done by a beating, then all that matters is exactly how much force was applied and where in terms of the immediate damage to the victim.
2. Everyone else so far is regarding the crime not just in its immediate terms, but also with regard to how others aside from the victim are effected by it.
This second sense is actually an integral part of how we regard crime, so I don't think it's illegitimate to consider it as part of how we regard the severity of the crime. In fact, Will puts forward an example that takes into account the effect on the family members of the victim, so he's not sticking *strictly* to the impact on the victim himself.
Considering the points that were raised here can be very helpful as we help tease out why we think the way we do about damage. But everyone is going to have to remain civil and avoid personal insults against colleagues. So let's regroup and make this productive - Jordan and Kimberly (and Will in his plea for civility) have made a good start.
David
ReplyDeleteHate crime is particularly bad because in a sense it is premeditated. Killing a straight guy can be random for the sake of the argument let’s say it is. Killing a gay guy is not random you are killing him because he is gay.
In addition if both crimes are premeditated, than killing of the straight guy or gay guy should be equally “punished” for.
My point is this all Hate Crimes should be labels as Premeditated Crimes, and punished in accordance to premeditated crimes.
It all depend on the situation, if a person was killed in the heat of the moment and he happened to be gay, then it is not a Hate Crime and that person should not be charged with it. Which goes to your statement, “you can never truly know what goes on in someone elses head. It is wrong for the courts and judges to assume these things.”
My reply is that is why we have the Judicial System to try and understand what happen at the time. "It is wrong for the judge to assume?" Courts do not operate on assumptions; I believe you are confusing this Country with some other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRespond to yendam_usa:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you on how people should be equally treated. And it is really sad that Matthew was murder because he was gay. Since we all are in America and we should have right to do whatever you want. You can’t be judging people by their inherent characteristics. People who are gay, lesbian, they are happy with what they are and why don’t we leave them alone and let them live their life? And moreover we have to respect other to get respect in return. You can’t just treat people differently.
Tenzin Y.
Question #2
ReplyDeleteWhat ideas and assumptions do you think the young men had, that made them react the way they did to Matthew?
I believe that the young men reacted to matthew each in a different way. Yes they both beat him and killed him but i believe that Aaron was more violent and had a bigger hate toward matthew. i think the reason that they reacted that way was becasue they are homophobic. Also i believe that they reacted that way because if they were caught with a gay man and a other straight men would have seen them they would have got beat also. Another reason that i think they reacted to him like that was becasue at first maybe they didnt know he was gay and when they found out they felt played and thats the worst thig that can happen to a persin who is a man especially.
To Victoria!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your opinion. We are no one to judge a persons views in other people. I understand that its true they did not choose to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Each person can love or be who ever thay want to be. Its no there fault and its not ours or there parents. Some people just have more hormones or cromozones in there body than others.
In response to will mohring
ReplyDeleteIt's very understandable that a crime is a crime but the way i understood the question was different. I thought it mean't that both people in the disagreement were acknowledged about the "fight" so would you still say that's unfair? Whether we choose or not there are different punishments for different crimes so obviously some crimes are taken more seriously than others. I agree that if my family member was a victim in any crime I would be equally concerned but fact is that just because it's bad doesn't mean the person will be punished properly.
-laura
Response to Will.
ReplyDeleteI understand that a crime is a crime but crimes have different levels of how bad they are. The more severe crimes are murder, battery, assult, etc. But what i dont get is that how you say vandalism is in the same category. Yes it may mess up a persons property but its only materialistic damage and it can always be replaced(insurance). So would you feel the same if a loved one or you, some how got charged with invalintary man slaugter would you feel that all crimes are the same still?
-cameron
@David
ReplyDeleteYou said, “The growing idea is that “all people are equal” etc, if that is true, then gays should not get special treatment just because they are homosexual.” Well that goes both ways, you cannot say you think they should not receive “special” treatment because of you they are and then treat them differently for being who they are. “While they may deserve some SYMPATHY for the past, that shouldn’t go so far as to create entire laws just specially for them.” Laws are there to protect people from robbery, abuse, violence, etc., if a law is passed, it is done so for a reason, if you continue to treat them differently, than actually they do deserve laws that specifically pertain to them.
Another thing you said that caught my attention and I do not agree with is, “If someone steals something from me, or insults me in some way, I might fight him. While wrong, this is normally understood. Why can’t the problem I have with him be the fact that he is gay? If he wants to be accepted in society, he has deal with the fact that some people are not going to like him.” When someone steals from you, it is provoked, that is why it is “normally understood,” if you want to retaliate. And if you do not like someone, well that is fine you as well as everyone else in this country are entitled to their own opinions, but when you attack someone for no other reason than, because of who they are as a person or what they believe in, that is when it is not understood nor is it acceptable.
And finally, you said “They can work harder to fit in to society on their own!” Well, every society has different outlooks on how you should act. Let me ask you this, if you do not fit into society because of who you are how do you worker harder to fit in? Are you supposed to compromise who you are, what you believe in, who you love, or what you love to do, in order to fit in to society? Be the same as the person next to you and you will not be treated differently. How do you work harder to fit in to society when the reason you do not fit in is due to the fact that you are: disabled, Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, a woman, gay, too tall, etc.? There will almost always be a law that you feel is unfair such as those specifically pertaining to gays, but at the same time there will always be a defense such as “temporary insanity” that others may feel is unfair as well. If everyone accepted each for who they are, then no one would have to work harder to fit into society because, they would all fit into society.
ashley f.
Responding to Laura, I agree with you, because killing someone because of their ethnicity, gender, or being lesbian or gay is wrong and people that are going to commit a horrible crime like that should think twice of what they are about to do. They should think about the victims family, their love ones regarding there inherent Characteristics. And I also find it ridiculous because people that commit these sort of crimes are born and raised with a lot of hate and anger that makes them do things that they should not be doing. Every one is the same and every one should be treated with respect regarding their differences.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Marielle Laude
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. We may not really know why Shepherd was badly beaten that night. Here are two straight guys in a bar, worried about Shepherd coming on to them and making them feel uncomfortable. They were probably afraid of the way he might have reacted if he approached the two young men. But I agree with everything you said in your response to the movie. We should respect people and their decisions, whether we like it or not. If anything, we should be there for them.
@David Brosius October 9, 2010 10:28 PM
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand your point of view and where you’re coming from, I must disagree with you. I don’t believe that laws created for hate crimes are special treatment for gays or any other group of people. Laws are created for a reason. These laws were created because people aren’t treated equally. They weren’t created to give one group of people a special advantage over another group of people—they were created so that those who aren’t treated equally can be treated more fairly. Right now, these laws are necessary because even though we can say that all people are equal, society doesn’t reflect that.
Also, I don’t think that gays want to be like everyone else, I think they want to be accepted for who they are by society, which includes being able to act how they want whether it’s by acting gay or not. It’s fine to dislike someone because they’re gay, that’s an opinion that people are free to have. It’s when people act on that dislike that makes an action a hate crime. If a crime is committed for no other reason than “He/she is gay,” that’s a hate crime. With hate crimes, a message is being sent to others saying that it’s not okay to be gay or to be yourself; you have to act the way society thinks you should act to be treated with respect and equality. This shows that people aren’t equal if they’ll be discriminated against or treated differently because they aren’t following societal norms.
Lastly, people commit crimes because they have reasons behind them, which are their motives. Crime and motive are very closely linked and I believe they should both be considered whenever a trial is ongoing. All crime is not the same. There are different degrees of crime. If we say that murder is murder or that killing someone is killing someone, what if someone accidentally killed another person? The person is still dead, so should that someone get the same sentence as a person that deliberately and meticulously planned and succeeded in killing another person? As an example, what if a person accidentally ran someone over and killed them? Should they get the same sentence as a person that carefully laid out a plan to kill someone and succeeded? Sentencing people because of the results of their actions is easier but can we do it fairly without looking at the circumstances and feelings behind those actions? People’s intentions do matter. In the case of today’s courts, people’s thoughts behind the crime would mean the difference between manslaughter and murder, whose punishments differ in severity.
- Kristi Phan
Kristine Carlos in response to Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteYour comment was very interesting and it made me think… when you say that it “implies that victims are sometimes to blame” because of their inherent characteristics, and other victims without those inherent characteristics are “not to blame,” I don’t think it’s so much as the characteristic or person to be blamed. I think it’s something different altogether. I think it’s just about the fact that people don’t have enough tolerance to accept that people are different. I think this is what some of society lacks right now, among many other things it lacks. I believe that there should be some kind of standard level, or something, of understanding and tolerance. Another thought… but because of the level of tolerance and understanding that some of society lacks, it seems like that’s why we have all these laws that are supposed to protect us from harm and other crimes. These laws are the only things, the only boundaries, or “standards,” that keep any of us from being victims of crime, and sometimes, they don’t work.
So I don’t really think any particular party is to blame…
I think the only reason why a crime can be particularly bad is because it crosses the line of where all humans should receive some standard level of respect, regardless of differences or inherent qualities… and I think the only way to solve this is if people were more accepting and understanding. If people were just a little more tolerant of everyone’s differences, we wouldn’t need all these laws to keep us from being victims of different crimes.
I apologize if that was a little confusing… Reading it over, I kind of confused myself, too. Heh… :P
Kristine Carlos in regards to my previous comment:
ReplyDelete...I just want to add one more thing...
"I think the only reason why a crime can be particularly bad is because it crosses the line of where all humans should receive some standard level of respect, regardless of differences or inherent qualities…" -- Of course by being a victim of crime, a line is already crossed for some level of respect. But hate crimes, I feel as though it offends the cores of our humanity, where we are all equally human, but all equally different, that one difference isn't better or worse than another.
In response to amber Question 1
ReplyDeleteHardyal
I agree people should not kill a person based on inherent characteristics.Stealing and killing are totally wrong and they should have other ways of dealing with your aggresion and hatred.Futher more people should embrace people of different culture and background and live as one because we are all god children on this planet.Besides america is a democracy and people should have there own choice without hatred.We need more human flourshing rather than hatred and killing of individual because we disagree with there sexual preference.hardyal
Kristine,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding. I'm not sure if I made myself clear in my last comment. I wasn't saying that *I* think victims are sometimes to blame (I don't!) - I was saying that for the people who said hate crimes are especially bad BECAUSE "the victim can't help who they are, and therefore they are not to blame", that those people were leaving an unsaid implication - that if you weren't in that category, then maybe you WERE to blame somehow. I was trying to take the concept of blame/"being able to help it" out of the equation entirely, because I don't (personally) think it's relevant to the argument. Or at least not substantially so.
I couldn't tell from your comment if I had made myself clear, or not. Hopefully if not, that clarified the point I was trying to make.
I appreciate your comments though, and am glad my comment caused thought - yay for thought! :)
@Victoria Cooper
ReplyDeleteI agree on your statement that all crimes that inflict some kind of pain on to other are not acceptable. People can’t change characteristics that they are born with so they should not be hated for something they don’t have control over changing. I really liked how you used the saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover, but the contents inside” because this just doesn’t apply to hate crimes but it applies to our every day lives. We come across people we don’t know every day and often times we are so quick to judge because that is the fastest and easiest thing to do. And this is what Aaron and Russell did. As you stated, these two men had no intention of getting to know Matthew and simply expressed their feelings towards Matthew in a matter that was unnecessary and unacceptable. I also like how you stated that you feel as if a hate crime is more serve then a regular but they should not be overlooked just because it is a hate crime. I agree with that in that even though it is a hate crime, there are still other serious crimes that are committed in are world today and they should all be looked at and treated equally.
-Marielle Laude
Good discussion, thanks everyone!
ReplyDeleteSo, this notion of "not being able to help" some innate quality is a tricky one in several ways.
First, I think we're referring to several different ideas when we use the phrase, and it's sort of morphing around among those ideas without us being really clear about exactly which sense we mean.
Second, it has a connotation that I don't think everyone intends.
So let's address these one at a time:
The people who are raising the idea that people can't "help" their innate characteristics are, I think, trying to get at something like this: if I get attacked because of some behavior of mine, it might be a perfectly acceptable behavior to do, and I might have every right to do it, so there's nothing *wrong* with my doing that behavior. But it's under my own control. So the impact of the crime on me psychologically is something I can handle - I can defiantly continue my behavior because I have every right to it, but that's a decision I can make. If I get attacked because I have money or a computer and someone takes them from me, then of course it's a terrible violation and it was wrong, and I wasn't at fault for having a computer, but it's the kind of thing that happens to anyone - it's just the price of living in a complex society. So that, too, is something that I don't feel beyond my ability to handle. On the other hand, if I get attacked for an innate characteristic, then the entire situation is beyond my control - it feels like much more of an existential threat because there's no sense in which I have any agency. I can't choose to change my behavior to avoid trouble (even if I don't choose to do it, I still have the choice); I can't choose to take safety precautions to avoid crime. The attack is an attack on my very existence, which is deeply alienating.
I think Kimberly's worried that the phrase is shading into a meaning something like: saying that one can't "help" one's innate characteristics implies that everyone else who's the victim of a crime *could have* "helped" it by doing something differently. But on the contrary, most victims of crime are innocent, or at least not at fault in the crime.
There's one more connotation of the idea that people can't "help" their race, religion, sexual orientation, or what have you, and I don't think the people using that phrase intend that connotation, but just to be clear. When we say, well, Matthew couldn't help being gay, it has a kind of underlying suggestion that being gay is something bad, and that he wouldn't have been gay if he could have "helped it." As I said, I don't think anyone using the phrase meant it that way, but it's important to be clear about that so there are no misunderstandings.
Ah yes Professor! I think you have encapsulated exactly my point, but with more clarity! I was fussing about the unsaid (probably unintended) implications of those sorts of phrases, and you teased that out very well. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteYes,i think it's something that makes a crime worse because a person is born with certain characteristics.In the case of Matthew Shepard it was horrible because they murdered him jus because he was gay. Hate crimes are the worst crimes because they are done out of one of the most ignorant and dangerous qualities a person can have: Hate. In this country hate is easily spread because that is something no government official or any person can control in another person. And also with our constitutions laws, such as freedom of speech it makes it so easy to spread hate because it's legal. Spreading hate,whether its because of someones religion, sexual orientaion,or race can lead and often leads to murder. For example, black people have been persecuted and murdered for years in this country based off of their skin color and where they come from. Not liking a person for who they can't help to be is hate. Hate crimes and murders have been happening for years. For example, Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay, and Emmitt Till,an african american boy, was killed because he was black. These type of crimes have always happened and will continue to happen until people stop using stupid reasons such as someones born characteristics to murder them.These have to be the worse kind of murders compared to a robbery gone bad or a murder over money because hate crimes are based on characterstics that people cant help but to have. If you kill someone because of simply who they are and the fact that they can't do anything about it,it is the worst crime ever.
ReplyDelete-Julice I.
In response to Eddie C.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you're saying because, it is completely wrong to murder someone because of their race or sexual orientation. And yes there is a big difference between a hate crime and a regular crime or murder. Some people say all crimes are hate crimes but i disagree because killing someone over money is far from killing someone because of their skin color or for being gay. i agree with you when you say people should just be accepted for who they are because in reality we all are different in some ways from eachother but we're also alike. And also you would want someone to accept you for who you are so why cant you accept someone for who they are?
-Julice I.
Response to David:
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree with you. It's not right for a person to get beaten or even killed for the simple fact that he was gay. As you said that homosexuals state they "are just like everyone else" and want to be treated equally, I don't think they were looking for special treatment whatsoever. I think what they mean is that they want to be not discriminated against for the sole reason of their sexuality. You think nobody should get special treatment, correct? Then if a person of color in a white majority town who gets discriminated against is not morally wrong? If they had abused him because they didn't like his skin tone and that was the problem they had against him, it is allowed?
If a hate crime is not worse than a regular crime, then you are saying that crimes based on hatred of different race is allowed? I think you contradict yourself in your response. I accept that people have different views on various issues, but I think that you failed to address the question at hand. The question was based on inherent characteristics in which a person cannot technically change.
BTW - today is National Coming Out Day. I'm gladly out as a straight ally of gays, lesbians, bisexual, and trans people.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to a day when the idea of a "coming out" day is absurd because no one would consider it beneficial to their safety or emotional well-being to be closeted.
Apologies if this is too off-topic, but I've been thinking throughout this entire conversation that if I were in our class, reading everything here, and I were gay (and statistics say that 1 in 10 people are gay - so chances are good that there are a couple of gay people in our class), I sure wouldn't feel safe coming out. And that's a problem that I hope to see disappear in my lifetime.
--Kimberly J