***NOTE***
Because of the power outage, we introduced Kant in class today instead of finishing the movie. We'll finish watching the movie on Tuesday (I'll email the location before class). New due dates for your forum answers are below.
***NOTE***
Please read all of the comments before you post - 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.
**NOTE**
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.
***NOTE***
Make absolutely sure that you're speaking with respect for everyone in your comments. Comments that display disrespect for persons will be deleted and you will not get credit for your answer.
**NOTE**
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.
***NOTE***
Make absolutely sure that you're speaking with respect for everyone in your comments. Comments that display disrespect for persons will be deleted and you will not get credit for your answer.
**NOTE**
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 I can't 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 Friday, March 25, at 8 p.m. Then respond to 1 of your colleagues by Sunday, March 27, at 8 p.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 wanted to steal something from them? Why or why not?
- What unexamined ideas and assumptions do you think the young men had, that made them react the way they did to Matthew? What do you think motivated those assumptions?
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
Response to Question #1
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think there is something particularly bad about crime that is aimed at a person because of their inherent characteristics.
People who commit hates crimes seem to have the idea that they are superior to those whom they are targeting. That sense of superiority lends itself to them thinking that they have a “right” to commit the crime, and they often seem to think they are doing it for the “good” of others. That is just craziness to me.
This sense of superiority based on something that a person has no control over, seems more dark-minded than other crimes. There seems to be a whole ideology that goes along with a hate crime (like Hitler had) that doesn’t go with other crimes. It is an ideology that not only can lead to murder, but to other horrible things like human trafficking. It’s disturbing to say the least.
It really doesn't matter who the crime is committed upon, but society believes that hate crimes are worse than any other crime just because they are discriminating on a certain type or race or gender, and in this case sexual preference. When in reality it doesn't really matter what the circumstance of the murder were, a crime is a crime and murder is murder. Its hard to understand how being killed by a robber or a gang of hatefull young boys are in any way different, both are awful things but the circumstances don’t make them any different. The media in the movie seem to be so concerned about the young man’s death, because society loves to hear about gruesome deaths that involve some form of racism, its not because they care or are trying to inform the public about how gays and lesbians are being discriminated. There are several other groups in the united states that are currently being discriminated but the media is not interested. Maybe because it really doesn't concern the public much.
ReplyDeleteMel. E
Koy S.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Question 1:
While murder is murder regardless of the reason for it,I do believe that murder based on race, sexual orientation or whatever it may be hurts others on a personal level. If you are in a bad neighborhood and a neighbor is robbed or even murdered then you can move. But if you are gay and someone else who is gay is not only murdered but tortured and murdered, then moving isn't going to relieve all of your concerns. That fact that there are such malevolent sentiments toward a particular group makes someone who identifies himself or herself with that group feel threatened no matter where they reside because people anywhere can feel that way. The fact that someone can feel so much hatred that they act in such a violent way, will make anyone within that group feel in self conscious and threatened.
Hate crimes, especially violent ones, are commited on a personal level. A lot of crimes are performed without thought of who or what the victim may be. But to specifically target someone of a particular race or orientation is pre-meditated and acted because of who they are. The circumstances of a crime are important to take in consideration. If we say that hate crimes are no worse than other crimes and we don't take cirumstance into consideration then we'd only have few laws that apply to many different types of crimes. We would not have juvinile rehabilitation, people who suffer from mental illness would suffer in prison and every single case would be have the same ending. There should be more emphasis placed on hate crimes because things need to change in society concerning tolerance and freedom of the individual.
I am answering the Question to #1
ReplyDeleteYes! I believe that it is wrong to kill someone based on who they are whether it be their race, sexually orientation or gender, that’s what you call a hate crime. I feel like when someone commits a hate crime there is something wrong with that person within themselves. It is not fare that a person cannot be themselves because of what you think and how you feel. The way that they killed Matthew shows total disrespect for him as a person, and that is what they wanted to-do. The killers wanted to prove to Matthew that they were in control and Matthew was beneath them. Committing a murder with hate on your mind rather than one form steeling deserves more jail time in my eyes. When you are committing a hate crime mentally you are thinking about what you are going to do and how much you hate this person and anyone that can plan out how they are going to hurt someone is wrong in my eyes!
~AzSurde’ <3
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI’m responding to question # 1.
Yes, in my opinion these kinds of crimes are worst. We even created a new category of offense in American Criminal Law, “the hate crimes”.
Most of the times, hate crimes are very violent. It seems that individuals who commit these crimes think that they are superior in some way. The perpetrators always find a “good” or a “reasonable” explanation for committing these crimes; as we had seen on the movie “The Laramie Project’. In the movie, the second suspect totally justified his actions of cruelty. What blows my mind away is that most of the hate crimes are very well planned and elaborated. The perpetrators have a lot of time to premeditate the crime, and plan their actions. Which makes it worst. These crimes are cowardly executed, and most of the time it is a group of people against one defenseless person. Another characteristic of hate crimes is that the victim is taken at night, or early morning when there is no light yet. Sometimes the perpetrators do not even know the victim or have something against their victim. The victim is chosen because they fit into the category that the perpetrators dislike.
Thx,
Maggie
For some reason blogger keeps deleting Maggie's answer, so I'm posted it here for her in case it happens again:
ReplyDeleteHi there,
I’m responding to question # 1.
Yes, in my opinion these kinds of crimes are worst. We even created a new category of offense in American Criminal Law, “the hate crimes”.
Most of the times, hate crimes are very violent. It seems that individuals who commit these crimes think that they are superior in some way. The perpetrators always find a “good” or a “reasonable” explanation for committing these crimes; as we had seen on the movie “The Laramie Project’. In the movie, the second suspect totally justified his actions of cruelty. What blows my mind away is that most of the hate crimes are very well planned and elaborated. The perpetrators have a lot of time to premeditate the crime, and plan their actions. Which makes it worst. These crimes are cowardly executed, and most of the time it is a group of people against one defenseless person. Another characteristic of hate crimes is that the victim is taken at night, or early morning when there is no light yet. Sometimes the perpetrators do not even know the victim or have something against their victim. The victim is chosen because they fit into the category that the perpetrators dislike.
Thx,
Maggie
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteThe two young men that killed Matthew Sheppard grew up in a community where I believe that some community members didn't care about your sexual orientation and some did. They were part of the families that cared about sexual orientation and I think that they were raised to believe that it was wrong and never knew how to handle the situation if it were to come at them, just like the situation they were in. If both of the young men told a true story, then that means that they definitely did not know how to handle the situation at all. The assumptions that they made about Matthew "passing" on them might have been entirely different. Matthew could have been being really friendly, and being intoxicated could have put that just a little over the norm. Like a pat on the shoulder that could have translated into a rub on the shoulder. But growing up the way they were raised, they were unable to grasp the situation and reacted to a point where they OVER reacted. The motivation for the assumptions were that gay people were not supposed even live. That they were not supposed to be close to you or even look at you. They were said to be sinning by being gay. So obviously the men were raised that way, to think that way and to be prejudice towards that type of living style, even if that means lashing out at someone for something that could have been as little as a pat on the shoulder. The young men were oblivious because of the way they were raised and they acted the way they did because of their upbringing.
Chan S.
In response to Mel E.:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. The media seems like it's just out there to find a story that would need a lot of attention. If it was a murder that didn't involve a person of a different sexual orientation I think that it would have been just a normal case on the Monday night news. Yes, there are tons of other groups that are being discriminated in our so called "free" country, but there isn't much media that is portraying their incidents. Families were hurt from those incidents as well, but there doesn't seem to be much stories about them. The media only seems to try and find interest in stories that are "current" and that they know will receive a lot of attention, which I find to be really sad because there are a lot of things happening to families and just people in general. But they aren't being reported because they don't follow the main stream ideas that everyone is looking for.
In response to question #1
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics. Murder is always bad no matter what the reason is. If anyone I knew was killed i wouldn't care why they were killed, I would just be sad that they were killed. If someone tried to steal from me because of an inherent characteristic or for any other reason, I would be just as angry.
The media pays more attention to hate crimes because the audience eats those stories up. The media just cares about the ratings. Like mel and chan said, the media reports these stories because they get a lot of attention. If it was another kind of murder like a break in it wouldn't get that much attention.
Luis R.
Response to question 1:
ReplyDeleteThough all crime is bad, no matter who it’s aimed at, crime that is targeted towards people because of their characteristics is especially heinous. This difference of this crime between others is recognized by the title given to it: hate crime. I believe hate crimes to be particularly bad because they target people based off of things that they cannot change. For example, people who don’t want to be robbed don’t walk around showcasing all their expensive goods; this cannot be said for someone who does not want to be robbed because of their born characteristics (race, gender, sexuality). Something else that makes hate crime bad is that it is caused by ignorance and can be prevented. With hate crime, the perpetrator’s thoughts of their victims are based off of harsh prejudices and stereotypes, which both, with proper raising and/or education, can be diminished. They also threaten the concept of freedom of self, and belittle the idea of all being equal.
Angelique V.
To #2,
ReplyDeleteThis question is very hard to answer, for me anyway, because I completely do not approve of what McKinney and Henderson did. To find an answer, we have to dig deep into the minds of McKinney and Henderson and try to understand, if it is possible, why they did what they did. So in that New York Times article link, it said that Matthew Shepard’s sexual advances on McKinney reminded him of homosexual abuse he suffered as a child. This is like Aristotle’s virtue ethics, right? The first thing we want to instill in society are the habits of a functioning society: non-malevolence, benevolence, fairness, and honesty. If someone was abusing McKinney, then his society was not a well functioning society because it had malevolence and lacked benevolence. And if that “someone” had a particular characteristic, in McKinney’s case his abuser was homosexual, then the abused would likely develop there own stereotype that all homosexuals are just like my abuser (this is the unexamined idea and assumption). Also, as I recall from my handy dandy notes, a good upbringing is a foundation for good character. So what is the product of a not-so-good functioning society and poor upbringing? Guys like McKinney. So McKinney’s assumptions are definitely motivated by his past. But you know I understand that McKinney was not fond of gay people, but I don’t understand why he would want to kill someone because they were gay; you can’s apply traits of one person to a whole group. My best guess is that killing Shepard was McKinney’s way of getting revenge on his past abuser.
Marc C.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteI personally believe a crimes a crime regardless of ones race, ethnicity, or gender. Hate crimes are NO different then any other crime, and shouldn't be given any special consideration due to the fact. Essentially, a person murdered based on their sexual preference is no different than someone murdered, say for instance, in a robbery.
I think people (myself included) can more easily sympathize to crimes committed purely driven by hate, and therefore form an emotional bond tied to these kinds of crimes. This is why I strongly believe hate crimes are portrayed by the media and individuals to be worse or harsher than most.
Hopefully you can recall the lady in the film who was upset at the fact that Matthew Shepard was attracting pretty much ALL the media attention, while an officer who was killed the same day received only a small caption in a newspaper. I think this is a great example of how society places a different, and sometimes bigger, emphases on hate crimes,as apposed to crimes motivated by other means. Certainly, we can all agree that murder is “bad”, and if we can agree on this, then the reasons one is murdered really shouldn't matter. In any instance, the end result is the same. Whether an individual is killed in the name of hatred is irrelevant; hate crime or not, a person is still no longer living.
If we unfasten our emotional ties to this issue, and look at it from a rational perspective, I think we'd agree that crime is crime despite the motive, and in this instance, one murder is no more just than another.
-Ryan J.
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteMurder is murder regardless of the circumstances; however, since American society supposedly bases itself on the shared value of equality, an attack on an individual for their inherent characteristics is particularly bad because it represents an attack on society as well. Equality for all members of American society, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc., is generally cherished as part of who we are as members of the community. The media reacted to hate crimes, like the murder of Matthew Shepard, with such hype because these crimes show us how we, as a society, are not completely successful at creating a social environment that guarantees the "equality for all" we claim to value. As we saw in the movie, the people of Laramie were not only disgusted by the crime of murder itself, they were in shock from the exposition of the fact that their community had bred two hateful people who valued equality so little that they would murder an innocent college student simply because of his sexual preference.
Jeffrey H.
Rhonda's comment disappeared - here it is again, below:
ReplyDeleteI’m responding to question 2. People fear what they don’t know. Obviously, this is a very small town with not much diversity. People usually rely on hearsay or on what they read in their local paper for information happening to them and the “world” around them. I know that when I was growing up, people used to tell me over and over again that gay people molested children. They were an abomination, and would be punished for their actions. As I got older and started to move out of my surroundings, I started hearing other things like, “Gay people are just people. They walk, talk, and poop just like you and everyone else. They are just people. It’s no big deal.”
These young men were victims of this. They lived in a community where there were gays, but they had to hide. To them, Matthew was a “non-human” who deserved what he got. To rationalize this, the accused made up the story about Matthew coming on to him. He just needed an excuse to tell the police so they would think that Matthew provoked him, thereby giving him reason “blank” out with rage.
Like I said, people fear what they don’t understand. And even when they do understand, sometimes, they still have problems with others who are different than themselves. It’s such a pity. The world is full of good people, wonderful people, because of their own fears.
Get to know people by their character, not by their sexual preference or race or religion. I think if this community did so, they would find out that they have been the victim of a bunch of wives-tales.
--Rhonda S.
Answering question 1: My response is...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I do think it is wrong to kill someone because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Also known to others as a “hate crime,” but what I disagree about is why they punish those who commit hate crimes more than to say a “regular crime” such as robbing someone and then killing them.
This country is suppose to be based on equality, right?. So why does it make it any more right to punish a person more because they killed someone based on their sexual orientation. The current law proposes that more punishment is given to those who commit a hate crime.
I believe a murder is a murder. Yes, there are many motives to a murder but whose to say that any one motive was more affected to lets say the victim’s family or close ones. The death of the victim still will drastically hurt and bring grief to the victim’s family whether it be because of who they are or if they have been robbed and then murdered. Does their death matter any less?
How would you feel if you had a daughter and a son both killed for different purposes? The daughter got killed because she was cheating on her husband and the son got killed because he was gay. The killer of the daughter would get less of a punishment than the killer who killed the “gay” son. My personal opinion would be giving both of them equal punishment whether it be the death penalty or life in prison. Like it shouldn’t even matter.
Thus protection laws shouldn’t even be placed to one certain group of people. These laws would only create anger and jealousy to those not being protected, therefore making the law redundant and causing more problems.
My response to two collegues:
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with both points Chan and Marc discussed to the answer of question #2. I do believe that a good upbringing like aristotle says defines what a person of good character is. I also believe that you are a product of your environment. If you were taught to believe that gay people shouldn't even be alive then of course you would react to gay people in such a wrong matter, as these young men did. Or like Marc said, since McKinney was abused by a homosexual person, he would only think that homosexuals were like him and would want to take flight when encountered by another, as revenge or maybe just to feel better and feel at ease. And when I say you are a product of your own environment, I mean in certain cases such as these young men who comes from (what i would say Chan was talking about) a society where gay people weren't common and were hated upon, thus the young men's intentions to kill were most likely the right thing to do in their eyes.
Responding to Michelle B.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was trying to say but couldn't figure out how. I agree that laws should punish crimes and especially murder equally regardless of whether it is a hate crime or random crime. I also think that the law should protect people fairly from danger and violence, but that's the issue. Some groups of people need specific protection and should get it. Fairness is key, not just equality. I absolutely agree with you on not punishing hate crimes more severely and I think that can be avoided by having the specialized laws of protection beforehand.
Koy S.
Response to Question #1
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think that there is something particular about crimes when they are aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics. I think that these types of crimes are done mostly because of hatred and rather then because you wanted to steal from them; although, the fact that you are doing it because of hatred doesn’t make it right to commit the crime. Plus I think that these types of crimes are sometimes harder to judge and there for sometimes the punishments are wrongly decided. Another particular thing about these types of crimes is that most of the time the person who commits the crime thinks that he/she is doing the right thing or that he/she is making the world a better place just because they are getting ride of those they dislike.
Although I do think that there is something particular about this type of crimes I believe that they shouldn’t be treated or judge any differently then other crimes. Do to the fact that if someone was kill because they were gay like in this case it shouldn’t mean that the trial should have more priority then the one of a person who got kill for any other reason other then the fact that he/she was gay. Since a crime is a crime no matter what the reasons behind it are.
-Jose Ayala
Question 1.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think there's something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics. United States is culturally advanced and highly democratic nation. Each individual has his own personality. Everyone has right choose their own favor. I think that a hate crime is worse than a regular crime. For regular crime, it must have a reason about why the person made a crime. For example, if someone need much money, he may steel others' wallet or rob others; but he really has reason make crime. All regular crime have a real reason no matter what is right or wrong. However, I don't think if you hate a person, you should kill him. You hate a person is not a reason to make crime. Sometime, I can understant why a person made a regular crime, it should have a reason, maybe I can forgive him. However, I cannot understant a hate crime! Did you killed him just because he was a gay? OMG the thing which he is a gay is not your reason of killing him. This is in United States. This is a bulwark of freedom. Everyone has his personal right choose his favor. Nobody can divest other people of power of choosing. Therefore, a hate crime cannot be forgived!
“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 wanted to steal something from them? Why or why not?”
ReplyDeleteFirst let me start by saying I read the 10 comments that were posted last night, and was up all night thinking about them (haven’t been getting much sleep lately and decided this would be a good thing to consume my thoughts with;), and have been thinking of them for most of the day. I then read the new 10 comments and have been thinking of them as well. To everyone who has responded so far: your points are thought provoking, full of thought and emotion, and well said, whether I agree with them or not.
My immediate response to this question was, ABSALUTELY, it is worse if it is a hate crime, but after thinking most of last night and today about it, and taking all of your thoughts into consideration, as well as personal experience, I am not so sure about this. Perhaps a crime is a crime. Perhaps violence is violence. Perhaps violation is violation, regardless of who the recipient is. I consider Women to still be a minority, and I have been robbed before. I do not think I would feel less violated, of course I do not know for sure, if I were not a woman who is considered to be weaker than a man and easy prey. I do not, on the other hand, feel more violated because I am a woman. I simply feel violated because I was robbed, not only of irreplaceable items, but of my trust and feelings of safety.
I am also two time victims of violent and brutal rape- both of the men were black; both of the men made mention of my race being a factor, and the one told me it is what my people deserve. The fact that this happened because I am a woman, a white woman, never crossed my mind, or caused additional harm. Nor did I consider their race or gender. They could have any race; this is not significant. And men get raped and beaten too. I consider this type of crime to be a hate crime, but is it more painful than a crime without hate? Is there such a thing as a crime without hate? Whether it is hate for ones race or gender, or self hatred of the perpetrator, it is all one form of hate or another. It is all suffering of one, or another. Perhaps to say that robbing and murdering someone because they are gay is worse of a crime than robbing and murdering someone who is not unintentionally devalues the importance of the person who has been violated by circumstance. So, after much thought and consideration, and a deep feeling of sadness and compassion for the victims, and the perpetrators of hate crimes, I come to the conclusion that the suffering, in the end, is the same. While there is a difference in the circumstance of the crime, there is no difference in the end result. Both have been robbed, both have been murdered, both are victims of hate, and both leave behind families and friends who will suffer from confusion and loss.
Charity E.
Responding to Question #1:
ReplyDeleteA hate crime is definitely worse than any other regular crime. The reason is because you are trying to hurt a characteristic and we do not want to show that it is ok to do that. It is like a put down to that trait. In elementary, they teach you not to put down anyone for anything. So what is the difference from being a child and now? If we don’t punish those who hate a trait, it cultivates it. For example, if we didn’t punish the K.K.K. for their hate crimes towards African-Americans, their hold on society would be as strong as it was back then. Although, a murder is a murder, anyone can say the reason they kill someone is for hate. If we don’t punish them, they can be freed and just try to hurt the hated even more, and escalate the quantity of the murders. We must punish hate crimes more severely. This is in order to show the criminal that their thought is unacceptable and cannot be done again. If society sees the government punish hate crimes the same as regular crimes, they will believe it is fine to think hate. We do this severe punishment to show America that it isn’t ok to hate. America is supposed to be based on equality and letting these hate crimes go as a regular crime would destroy our base of equality. It is true that America hasn’t been equal for everyone, but we are working our way there.
JMadison
Responding to question#1
ReplyDeleteYes, I absolutely think that it is worse to kill someone based on his or her inherent characteristics because I think it is not fare for them; people cannot choose who they are. Especially, in America everyone is equal. We cannot say like because your color is different from my color, you need to be killed, so what would happen if other people have different color from yours? Would you get killed? And it continues like that way until everyone gets killed. It is not a right way for human treat each others. If someone needs money or something, he killed other person to have the thing. That can be a reason, and I understand that, but when he kills other people only because he hates them. I don’t think that can be a reason. It’s because like Zhisen said everyone has their right to be whoever they want and do whatever they want to do, so hate crime is the worse crime as other crimes. However, I think murder is always a murder no matter what and they need to be punished equally as their crime.
~Trang N~
Response to question #2
ReplyDeleteI think the men were just ignorant about gay people. They came from a conservative midwest state that never really addressed gay issues. I think they heard the normal stereotypes about gay people and no one taught them other wise. They were probably raised in the environment where gay bashing was acceptable. When they were approached by Matthew they saw him as a second class citizen and thought that he was coming on to them, which frightened them. They probably assumed that all gay people were promiscuous or had aids, and since they believed that stereotype they acted out in anger. Maybe they acted out because they believed homosexuality was wrong, or maybe they were just afraid of the unknown, the unknown being homosexuality.
- Conary Eliot
Good Evening,
ReplyDeleteWell to answer this question we must examine the two young boy’s past upbringing and their present influences. Since McKinney had most of the attention, let’s start with Henderson. Russell Henderson’s upbringing was not in the top ten favorites for best upbringings. Russell’s father left the family years ago and his mother was an alcoholic. Russell, as a young boy, was usually with his grandparents. He also dropped out of high school and as a result took several odd jobs around town.
As for McKinney, his upbringing was tough to dig up, but I did find out McKinney was well-known for his short temper and willingness to fight. For example, McKinney was in the same hospital that Sheppard was in, because of a fight McKinney and Henderson started with two Hispanic young men. Also we know about the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.
In this particular case I do agree with Aristotle in regards to a person needs a good upbringing to develop good virtues and character.
I would also like to mention McKinney and Henderson’s priest, I believe, fueled the false assumptions of homosexuality. This was only hinted once in the movie when the priest wondered if Mathew questioned his decision in sexuality. So, the two young boy’s unexamined ideas and assumptions are that homosexuals (whether male of female) spread AIDS, hate, and according to the bible they are evil in nature. Now with all the traumatic events that happened in their lives prior to the murder, I believe, created these unexamined ideas and assumptions. I say that because I believe these traumatic events turned into hate and fear and had to come out of them in some form or another.
To sum it up I believe these two boys would have killed someone eventually. So much hate built up inside them, possibly from the broken family syndrome, and fear from the unknown (homosexuals or other cultures). In the end who knows what they were thinking, but I have been a victim of a hate crime, and in my experience the abusers come from a long line of hate and abuse themselves.
Clayton M
I am responding to question 1. Because the crime is based on ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc. I think the crime for me is considered more harsh then usual is the fact someone would do harm to someone because he/she belongs to a specific group. It's scary to know that someone would inflict harm of anything sort because of someones background. It brings fear to those that have similar backgrounds of the victim. Like the movie, since Matthew was gay, and the attackers did it because of that, it brought fear to the homosexual community because they know they can be next. It goes along with any other group out there. Like how someone brought the fact hitler did that, it's sad to know there is people like that. Hate crime for me is considered more horrific. (I no way say it justifies any unrelated hate crime) but then again a crime is a crime. It's all horrific in the end.
ReplyDeleteAndy A.
Yes, I do believe there is something particularly bad about a crime aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics. I believe that the motivation of the perpetrator reflects greatly on the nature of the crime. The motivation of a thief might be to gain some benefit for himself through the loss of another. But, when a crime is aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics the only thing the perpetrator is motivated by is hate. Hence the name, 'hate crime'. There is no significant benefit for the perpetrator, he seeks only to cause loss. I feel this type of motivation gives a crime a darker nature, perhaps one subject to greater punishment.
ReplyDeleteMahak Hassan.
Response to question 1:
ReplyDeleteI think it is particularly bad when someone is murdered because of a characteristic of theirs compared to being murdered for something you have. They are both the same outcomes and are both equally tragic, but someone motivated to kill because of a characteristic shows that the murderer has a deep prejudice. A characteristic is something we cannot change. That murderer can then aim to kill many people of their particular prejudice; Compared to a thief who just wants to steal that certain item can kill many different types of people without aim except for that object.
A person who kills because they stole something is less deliberate, though that thief could have planned premeditative murder but that’s going into another narrative. In a racist crime it’s seems to me that it’s a lot more deliberate. They kill because they hate that person, maybe thinking that by eradicating them it is the right thing to do because they are not fit to live. It’s really sick that a person will kill someone just because they are different and that difference is not harmful at all. Just because a person is gay it doesn’t mean they are harming anyone by just being gay. It’s not like gayness, a certain ethnicity, height, color, whatever, exudes some sort of infectious cloud that will harm you or anyone. On that fact it’s another reason why this type of murder is horrific. This murderer is disillusioned that this was the right thing to do or that the victim is offensive to them so they have to then end them as to not be harmed. It really is despicable because those murderers are so closed minded.
-Diana Jucha
I think that crimes aimed at people because of their inherent characteristics are just as bad as stealing something from someone. I feel that all crimes, no matter what they are, are bad. I think hate crimes are considered particularly bad by society because it’s discriminating to a person’s inherent characteristics. Discriminating against someone, in general, because of their inherent characteristics is considered wrong so harming someone because of it is especially wrong. It should be recognized that murder is unacceptable regardless of the reason. I think it’s good that the town recognized Sheperd’s attack and dealt with it with the outmost seriousness. I think if all crimes were projected so seriously then there the rate of the crimes would dramatically decrease.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRespond to Marc:
ReplyDeleteYou said that: “it said that Matthew Shepard’s sexual advances on McKinney reminded him of homosexual abuse he suffered as a child. This is like Aristotle’s virtue ethics, right? The first thing we want to instill in society are the habits of a functioning society: non-malevolence, benevolence, fairness, and honesty. If someone was abusing McKinney, then his society was not a well functioning society because it had malevolence and lacked benevolence”.
I think if this part in the movie, I lost it (big lost ^^). Anyway I agree with you about this, Marc! I believe that when McKinney knew Matt as a gay, it reminded him of his really bad past that he tried to forget. Of course society influences someone a lot when they grow up, and anything that happened to their life before can also affect their virtue. As Michelle B said Matt was killed in a place where people don’t think homosexual is not a right thing. Overall, the men did what they did because of what they learned from their society and their upbringing.
~Trang N~
I think that Russell and Aaron felt disrespected by Matthew due to the fact that he even talked to them and in addition, everyone knew that he was gay in town. I feel like by talking to them, they thought that people who saw them talking to him would think that they were gay or even that they did support the lifestyle of being gay. I also think that they wanted to send a message to all the gay people in town and probably they always wanted to do this but they had never gotten a chance. And perhaps, they saw Matthew as the opportunity to do it. Also I think they assumed if he would get loose from where they had tied him, he would be too scared of them to report to the authorities. But most importantly, I think they thought that they would not be found guilty if anything because they would claim that he had made a pass at them. Also, I feel like they assumed that people would say that it was merely a robbery and the case would not continue like it was shown in the movie, they kept on saying, he always had nice clothes and shoes and probably, that’s why they took his shoes to cover the real motive. One last assumption, as much as they beat him, they probably assumed he would not turn out dead.
ReplyDeleteI think their assumptions were motivated by the fact they thought that no one would care enough for a gay guy like Matthew if he were beaten. I think they thought that it was not going to be a big deal since the town of Laramie and Wyoming at large did not welcome the idea of being gay. Like they showed in the movie, they were only a handful of people who were openly gay and they also feared for their lives for example, the female teacher who was looking over her shoulder all the time because she was gay. In any case, Aaron and Russell must have assumed that they had the support of the people and if anything, people of Laramie would be glad that they had done it because he was gay which is really sad when I think about it. The town of Laramie must have been really against being gay, by the time; Aaron and Russell assumed that they would get away with such a crime because if they did not think they would get away with it, they would not have done it. I feel like the attitude towards the gay in the town of Laramie was the biggest motive to their assumptions. In conclusion, the town of Laramie and Wyoming at large is to blame for the crime not only the young men.
Sylvie G
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to question #1
ReplyDeleteYes, I think crime will always be bad overall no matter what the motives are but to hate because of a sexual preference is horrible. It’s okay to not be okay with same sex preferences and that’s your opinion but to not like, or hurt someone because of how they want to live their life is wrong. That’s like telling a young child there not allowed to have a imagination, or a childhood because you don’t like it. Is that right? NO. It’s a big difference taking from someone because you HAVE to fend for yourself, but to take away a life because you opinion and preference is different than theirs isn’t right what so ever. Not everyone will have the same preference in sex, race or gender and many have been raised a certain way to only accept certain ways and things in life, but that doesn’t mean you are allowed to take a life because of that reason.
-Caneisha Felder
In response to Ryan J.
ReplyDeleteHey Ryan I totally agree with you about what you said about hate crimes being no different than any other crimes although they do get more attention and so there for some times seen as worse crimes, which makes the crime become more of a priority then other crimes. An I totally agree that a crime shout be treated the same no matter what, how ever we know that’s not the case so what do u think could be done to maybe try to stop this?
Plus you really brought out a point that I had forgotten about, the entire thing about the huge role that the media plays in all this.
Answer to question #1: I think that it's wrong when a crime is based on someone inherent characteristics because as of god everyone is the same no matter what color you are or race. We are the same inside and out. I think for those two young men it was just easier to say that they killed Matthew because he was gay, but we don't really know the real reason why they killed him. Maybe they were jealous of him. Also in the community everyone was afraid to say or show that they were gay. So that gave a the two men a reason to kill Matthew because they thought that he didn't belong in the community so they had to get rid of him. What I think that motivated them to kill Matthew was that maybe Matthew said something to them that they didn't like very much. I also think that they were disgusted because they have never seen someone be gay, so they thought it was something of the other world.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Luis
ReplyDeleteDear Luis,
I understand what you say. I think that taking a life is bad no matter what. I also agree that if I know someone who has been murdered I would be mad no matter what.
I just want you to think a little further about hate crimes. What makes it so bad is the fact that hate crimes target specific types of people, for no reason. The criminals normally do not have anything against their victims, besides the fact that they belong to a particular group of people that they hate. It’s very irrational. Many victims are not even known by the perpetrators. Some of them choose their victims randomly at the streets. Another thing really bad about hate crimes is the fact that the victims can’t even react. These crimes are cowardly committed, the perpetrators act late at night, or very early in the morning, while there is almost nobody at the streets. As we have seen in the movie, it’s normally more than one criminal against only one person. The victim is completely defenseless. Look at what Hitler did to the Jews. There is no explainable reason for what Hitler did. There is no logic explanation why he hated the Jews so much; the only thing is the fact that they were Jews. Look at what KKK did in the past. Why did they target the African American? Because they were African American, and in the KKK’s mind they were inferior. The KKK members thought they could attack black people, just for the pleasure of doing so. They would wait until everybody was asleep, and would burn their houses. Don’t you think that this is just insane? This is what make hate crimes so bad; the fact that one group of people think that they are superior to their victims. And because they are superior, the victims are seen as “things”, instead of people. I just wanted you to think a little more about this.
Thank you,
Maggie
Response to: Luis R. and Ryan J.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect… crime is not just crime and murder is not just murder. Many societies including our own recognize different types of crime and murder (assault, aggravated assault, 1st degree murder, manslaughter, petty theft, grand larceny, embezzlement, etc). Within many different categories of crime we recognize varying degrees of “badness.” We recognize that some things are worse than others or some things are not as bad as others and we want to provide justice in a way that seems appropriate. I really don’t think societies around the world have had this wrong throughout history.
This newer category of “hate crimes” we hear about (and was referred to in The Laramie Project) is not actually new. We just have a new name for it. Many different people groups have been targeted throughout history. The Jewish people during WWII are an example.
I agree that to target someone at all is bad, but I would take it further and say that to target someone because of something they can’t change like nationality, gender, etc. is worse. It is worse because of the demented forethought that went into it. Just like with our laws on murder… manslaughter is bad… but 1st degree murder is worse… it is worse because of the forethought. Yes, it all has the same end result, but it doesn’t all have the same beginning. And the beginning ideas and motivations are important! They are especially important if we can stop these beginning ideas from being perpetuated and resulting in more senseless crimes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Trang
ReplyDeleteyeah I didn't hear that in the movie either so it's okay, but that New York Times article link said that Matthew was abused by a homosexual as a child. If that's the case, then it's easier to understand McKinney's anger toward gays. But this past experience certainly doesn't justify McKinney's actions.
I also agree with Kristy there. I don't think you can just say killing is killing and killers should be punished the same way, or something like that. Scenario: Person A accidentaly kills Person B cause Person A wasn't paying attention to the road and hit Person B while he was crossing. Person A didn't want to kill Person B, but he's still a killer. It's not the same as, say, Person C killing Person D because Person C hated how Person D was hitting on his girlfriend.
So like Kristy said, same end result different beginning. That makes a big difference on the impact of the crime.
Marc C.
Blogger is still fighting Rhonda for some reason; here's her response:
ReplyDeleteI'm responding to Elizabeth. I disagree with you. People can always replace property, but never a life. I would rather have my house burglarized or my car vandalized than to face death. It is in our nature to survive no matter what.
Although the town responded as they did after Matthew’s death, too bad it took a heinous event like a beating of an unarmed, restrained person to open their eyes. I use the words, “open their eyes,” loosely. What happened after the media was gone? Did people continue with their prejudice, did the gay people living in that community feel safe to come out? Probably not. The fact is: People forget. They let time pass which starts the hate all over again. This is why history classes are so important.
--Rhonda Servin
In response to Rhonda:
ReplyDeleteYes I agree the public fears the unknown. But if anything that’s human nature not just ignorant people. For example, if the news reported an alien encounter I may buy a gun for protection. Why would I need a gun for something I know nothing about? Simple my human instincts are trained to defend first. Trained by who is another conversation, but the fact being most people would choose violence as a sense of self-security. Also I totally agree with you about your surroundings help you choose your opinion on a subject. I grew up in WI/MI and I heard the same allegations you heard in your childhood. Once I left the Mid-West my mind became more open-minded. Maybe if the two young men, who murdered M.S., where able to travel and develop their own opinion they may have had a different approach towards M.S. .
Although, hoping people will look at a person’s character instead of gender preference is not likely in today’s society. But, I do believe a true American Revolution is past due.
Clayton Marshalek
Response to:Angelique V
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Angelique opinion. "I believe hate crimes to be particularly bad because they target people based off of things that they cannot change." It is right. In my post, I explained that someone who made a hate crime was worse than some who made a regular crime. However, you used a different degree to explain the hate crime was particularly bad. In a hate crime, the victim was absolutely inculpable. If someone was afraid of being robbed, he can take care and stay at home. However, a gay person cannot do anything protect himself. They cannot change their favors. They just can wait to be killed by someone who hate them. A hate crime is an abnormal crime. It reflects social inequality and discrimination to the gay people. We need an egalitarian society, so the hate crime should be eradicated in the future.
Response to: Kristy C.
ReplyDeleteI read your response to my post and you honestly got me rethinking my position on this matter.(Thank You!) And although I'd LOVE to disagree and stand by my original statement, I'm going to have to reconsider my views. I think your correct that there are varying degrees of crime, and “badness.” I certainly agree that murder (1st or 2nd degree) is “worse” than manslaughter due to the element of intent. The variable of intent is something I did not originally consider but I think is very important as well. That being said, I don't know if I'm quite willing to say hate crimes are necessarily “worse” than other crimes though. The fact that theres a wide variety of crimes, each with varying levels of seriousness, makes it extremely difficult to pin point which crimes can be considered “worse.” Hate crimes are horrible in any sense and certainly deserve the sternest punishment.
Ryan J.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Caneisha Felder
ReplyDeleteHi. I do agree with your idea. You said that crime will always be bad overall no matter what the motives are but to hate because of a sexual preference is horrible. People cannot choose our sexual preference. The sexual preference is an inherent nature, so the sexual preference no have difference of right and wrong. Sometime, the criminal is commiserated. For example, someone killed his enemy who killed his child. Maybe I would commiserate him. However, someone who made a hate crime was not allowed to commiserate, because people cannot meddle others' sexual preference. A hate crime should be accuse by all society.
Sorry I did not put what question I was answering on my response, it was to question 1.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Mel
I think you made some very good points about the media not caring much about why the murder happen just caring about what story they need to focus on to get more attention from society. However, I disagree I believe that there is a big difference between a hate crime and any regular crime. Like you said murder is murder but when it is done with the idea of doing good by taking someone’s life away is way worse. People that commit hate crimes do it because they truly believe that person has no right to live because of their characteristics. I believe no one has that right to determine who can live and who cannot. Those boys in the movie could have simply made Mathew get out the car but instead they took it upon themselves to torture him. In a robbery in most cases the robber doesn’t go with the intention to kill just to steal and if murder is done then it wasn’t with the idea of doing a good thing and with the intention. most people who commit hate crimes do it thinking it is something good for society.
Grethel Rodriguez
I am responding to Mel E first then Marc C second,
ReplyDeleteI particularly like your comment (Mel) because I can relate to it. It is true that sometimes, we over look into a situation and we turn it out to be something that it is not. Knowing someone that was just robbed here at CCC, I would say we make so many conclusions sometimes. At first, when I heard that my friend was robbed, I thought to myself, “They robbed him because he just spent one week in the country and he got a different accent and stuff” And so because of all these differences, the robbers have been watching his every move and onetime, they decided to rob him. At least all my friends thought the same thing. But after some days, the robbers robbed two white girls that were walking down from their classes. Then, we were like, may be the thieves did not have anything against my friend; it was just that he happened to be in a right place but at the wrong time. I feel like America is such a diverse country and because of her tense diversity, crimes that are committed have been labeled differently for example; hate crimes. Mel is right, sometimes a crime is just crime but because its in human nature to make things personal we feel like it’s a hate crime. The media certainly knows that people get personal when it comes to things like race, sexual orientation, they intensify the situation to get people’s attention even more. However, I can not deny that hate crimes do exist and just thinking about it, it would definitely hurt me more to know or find out that my friend was robbed because of his color or origin because then he can not change anything about his ethnicity. If anything I would like to think they robbed him because he was just in the right place at wrong time. All in all, committing a crime towards someone for being himself or herself is definitely wrong and unacceptable.
To Marc, I just wanted to say; thank you for that extra effort that you took to look at New York Times because as person, who responded to question 2,I feel like it is a very good point to consider the fact that McKinney was sexually abused and the abuser happened to be homosexual. I think it is definitely right to assume the fact that may be McKinney has always been angry with the person who abused him and beating Matthew was his opportunity to release some of that anger. It is like he wanted revenge just that he directed it towards someone that did not do anything to him.
I believe it is part of being human that if a person wrongs us and is may be from a certain group of people, we usually stereotype all the other people that are from the same group until proven differently. Take for instance high school; every one thinks that if one hangs out with a click that may be deals in drugs, everyone else that hangs with them does drugs too but sometimes, there is that one girl or guy that actually does not do any drugs at all.
In response to Mel E.:
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you. I believe a hate crime is worse than a regular crime. The reason is because of the intent. The intent is hate and in a country where we promote equality we do not want to cultivate that hate. We want to dismantle it. We do this by punishing hate crimes more severely. I agree with you in the belief that hate crimes shouldn’t be more important as a regular crime. I also think a murder is a murder and a crime is a crime, but what is different is the intent.
I have to agree with you in accord with the media. The media blows up these events too much. In the movie every media station was at Laramie. They don’t do it because they care; they do it for their ratings. They say a crime is a hate crime any chance they get.
I have a couple of questions for you. Do you think the media blows up disastrous events and exaggerates the calamity of them or do they promote a sufficient amount of it? The reason I ask this is because the media played a large role in spurring up a homosexual movement all over the country, in the movie.
QUESTION 1
ReplyDeleteAt first one would honestly believe that it was Matthew who made the initial pass, however as I watched this movie on my own, my thought process began to change. The accused looked more interested in Matthew than he to them. Though they were identified as homophobic, no one stopped to think that they it could have actually been them who wanted something from Matthew. Then Matthew was HIV positive. What if he had told McKinney and Henderson and that is why they reacted? Change of plans for the boys, but they can’t just let Matthew go. I seriously want to know what really motivated Henderson and McKinney to brutally attack Matthew the way they did, but there is NO WAY this beating was impelled by a simple pass at McKinney. We never even heard Henderson’s intent. There was so much going on that night that was being overlooked, and the only person who could tell you what really was supposed to happen, is Matthew.
What other assumption can one make other than fear? Henderson and McKinney were afraid of something. There is no validation for what these boys did, however I believe fear was their motivation; which strikingly neglected to ever come to question. They clearly had this obscured reputation of disliking gay people, but it wasn’t to the point where would go around beating on people. Still and all, people knew, and if they were to ever think anything slightly different from “the norm,” these facades Henderson and McKinney put on would cease. In addition, there was fear pouring out of the town of Laramie, Wyoming. The idea that more people in their town were gay was definitely a factor in the ruling. They would rather ignore the issue and claim to accept that “Live and Let Live” bullshit. They way they looked at it were: let’s not have murderers and closeted gays, we’ll give the public what they want and say “gay panic,” where our purity will live. It’s all about presentation and delivery. Henderson and McKinney found an individual who really did “Live and Let Live,” and I don’t think they really understood the meaning.
Shanise K.
Ryan J
ReplyDeleteEven though I responded to question two, and do strongly sympathize for Matthew Sheppard, your response stood out to me the most. The lady that made the comment about the officer also hit me. Society disregarded the life of a man who was killed in the line of duty, to the fact that the media’s interest was elsewhere. I feel even stronger about being fair, and because the only reason this crime was getting so much attention because he was gay is kind of sad to an extent. People weren’t being rational at all, just as you said, and with that involved more and more people; who really didn’t even matter and made the case more complicated. Now I still believe this case needed to be investigated to the extent it was, but if they would have taken it a step further, and were to stop being so sensitive to his sexuality, or in your words “unfasten the emotional ties to the issue,” these boys just may have gotten what they truly deserved and ended up with the death penalty. Guess we’ll never know, and have to live with the fact that society ultimately makes choices based on what problems the media meddles with.
Shanise K.
In response to Luis R.:
ReplyDeleteYou raise a very good point. A crime is a crime no matter what, but the intent of the crime is even worse. With regular crimes, most people do it on impulse or the randomly choose victims, but hate crimes are more worse because they aren’t just attacking the victim, they are attacking the characteristic (lets say race) that they don’t like. Maggie brought up a very good example about Hitler and the Jews. He only targeted Jews for their characteristics and felt that they were ruining the world. Hate crimes actually tend to be more gruesome because the criminal is attacking the race. Hitler starved, dissected, and experimented with the Jews. The things he did are not mentionable. This example and many others are why I believe hate crimes are worse than regular crimes.
I can’t help but agree with you about the media. It sickens me how the media uses these stories to get their ratings. They use the lives of these poor victims. They do not care about them or show concern. It’s despicable. I also agree with you that the media will not be as jolly to report a regular murder as a hate crime.
Do you believe the media tends to promote and talk about disasters only?
To Rhona:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, “People can always replace property, but never a life,” which is why I think murder is worse than most crimes, because that life can never be brought back. And yes people do forget and it’s unfortunate that it took a heinous attack on a person for people to start taking action. People do forget but it’s not so much that they’ve forgotten, it’s that they haven’t cared to remember. People don’t forget gruesome events especially when it has been brought to their attention. Prejudice will always exist no matter what. It’ll take much more than a heinous event to change a strongly close minded prejudiced person’s opinion. I think that’s why a lot of the prejudice still continued and still does. Despite this, I think it’s possible to influence most prejudiced opinions. I think the media has the power to stop some of the prejudice and crime rates. If the media can influence what most of eat, wear and how we act, then I think the media also has the ability to influence some of the prejudiced folks into being more open-minded. If these crimes are taken as a serious issue everytime it happens then I think maybe people would start to take it more and more seriously.
Response to Maggie, kristy and Jmadison
ReplyDeleteThank you guys for the response and making me think more about this subject. I agree that there are varying degrees of "badness" and that some reasons behind crimes are definitely worse than others there are still a lot of crimes that are just as bad or worse than those of hate crimes for example, a serial killer that doesn't discriminate can have a worse demented forethought then that of a person committing a hate crime. another example can be a young person killing a random stranger as part of his/her initiation into a gang. Thank you guys for making me rethink my views.
When it comes to the media, I don't think they talk about disasters 100% of the time but they definitely show disasters often for ratings.
To Mahak:
ReplyDeleteNicely worded. I definitely agree with you. I too believe that hate crimes are particularly bad. I mostly argued they’re bad because they are done because of things that some people cannot avoid or change. I think I was more so trying to get at something like what you said in my initial response but just couldn’t find the words for it.
Angelique V.
Responding to Kristy:
ReplyDeleteI really agree with you I was trying to answer that question but I couldn't get the words out as clear as you did. You did a great job. That is true that people think they have the right o commit crimes but they are truly not. A lot of people think that is doing good for others but it is really affecting a lot of people around them. Matthew had the right to be however he wanted to be, he didn't really care about what other people thought. Also the people that commit the crimes think that they are better than anyone because they are brave to kill or murder someone that no one else would.
I agree with Rhonda's response to elizabeth, because in reality history always repeats itself. In a community something tragic happens and everyone may see things differently because of it but what happens when everything is settled down months later, life goes on and things slowly return back to the way they are. History classes are definitely a must because it helps us see how things happened then, and even realized how the same things are still happening now. It changed the community with mathhew's death but if people are raised a certain way in a community or society their roots arent going to dissapear.
ReplyDelete-Caneisha Felder
response to shanise'e
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything u said and totally agree with the statement you made about "fear" I don't think people understand that alot of muders or gay bashins is due to fear. People are scared of the gay world or community because they are afraid that its something they would like and they are scared to be judged by others because alot of individuals are taught thats not the way to be or grow up.
Response to Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that hate crimes are exceptionally bad. Though on your theory with decreased crime rates on if the media portrayed more hate crimes how would you think that would happen. I understand your idea and see how it can work, but I’d like to know how that idea would work out for you.
My idea on it is that because of media coverage more people would be pushed to see that it wrong. Say there are other prejudiced people in another town somewhere else. They then see all this coverage on the news about the murder of a gay man. This may in turn make them feel guilty for having a prejudice and may have them think to open their minds and change their ways. On the other hand they may like it that this person was murdered and try to follow in steps. I don’t think there would be a dramatic decrease in crimes though. Since people may become immune to watching all the murders based on prejudice, like how now there are murder news all the time and many of us just think “That’s too bad.”, or what not. You become immune to it and it’s dehumanized so it loses it’s effectiveness at some point.
To: Marisela, Ryan J. & Luis R.
ReplyDeleteMarisela – Thank you!
Ryan J. – Thank you! While I do think hate crimes are worse than random violence, I totally get what you are saying about it being difficult to pin point exactly which of the ones that involve some kind of forethought are worse than the other ones that also involve forethought. They all seem really awful to me. I guess the thing that nudges a hate crime based on “inherent characteristics” ahead of the others is the fact that the target of the violence cannot help their position. Again, thanks so much for considering my response. =)
Luis R. – I thought about the whole serial killer thing as I was working through this issue in my mind and I definitely think you are on to something with that. Serial Killers do have demented forethought! Not only that, but from what little I know, I understand that many have a certain type of person that they go after. Thanks for thinking about what I said. These forums are very thought provoking!
In response to Grethel & Charity's responses:
ReplyDeleteIf we are to arrive at a conclusions about what makes hate crimes worse then or the same as other crimes, we can't make assumptions about the criminal's intentions and feelings of remorse. I agree with Charity in that we can't really analyze the atrocity of hate crimes without questioning that of regular violent crimes.
On another note, I do think the presence of discrimination based on inherent characteristics adds to how horrible a violent crime is seen by society. On a personal level (as Charity said: if its your brother/sister as the victim), you might consider the crime just as horrible as that of a hate crime, and the fact that is not a hate crime won't necessarily help the grieving. However, I do think that the presence of hate in the crime influences how bad society considers the crime. After the murder of Matthew Shepard, the people of Laramie reacted with dismay at the fact that their community had raised two hateful murderers. Do you think that society's extra-negative view of hate crimes might come from the surprise being shown the darker truth of a nation supposedly built on democracy and equality?
Jeffrey H.
Question 1
ReplyDeleteA murder is a murder no matter who it’s aimed at. Although, we are in a society that promotes EQUALITY, it does seem like it’s worse when someone is murdered because of his or her race, ethnicity, gender and/or sexual orientation, but a crime is a crime. When a murderer gets imprisoned for however many years, they do not spend extra time in jail because of the sexual orientation or race of the person he or she murdered. He/she would spend the same amount of time as any other person who committed a murder. Every killer has a motive, and even though it can be a little messed up and crazy, they’re still murderers.
Respond to Canary Eliot:
I totally agree with you. The guys were scared of what they don’t know/understand and since “gay people” wasn’t an everyday subject for them to discuss, they freaked out. I don’t think they should have taken their freak-out to extremes and torture Shepherd the way they did. Just because they didn’t understand why gays are the way they are, they shouldn’t go off and beat them. That’s pathetic.
-Ashley T.
i think there is something wrong with crimes commited because of your characteristics. How is someone going to commit a crime against you just because of something they dont like about you? Whether your black, white, mexican, gay or straight, that is not a reason for someone to target you. I think hate crimes are more harmful to communities because of the consequences it has on the people. Like in the movie after Mathew was murdered it changed the way the town say its people. Laramie did not know that they had people capable of commiting such a horrible crime. If it was for a crime it would have been somewhat better since that would be a more random crime. But since it was becasue mathew was gay then it makes it worse.
ReplyDeleteThe men made alot of assumptions when they decided to murder Mathew. They murdered him solely becaseu of he was gay. They did not know that he was a nice guy that always looked out for peoples best interest. He was well known around the town as a good kid that didnt start or look for trouble. It was a shame that they did not get to know mathew or they would have realized how great he was.
in response to Jose Ayala,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. Since it is a hate crime it is harder to judge. Since the person commiting the crime thinks that his actions are valid at the time of the crime, later on when he realizes that what he did was wrong, it is harder to judge. the people commiting the crime often create controversy when presenting their defense and that can lead to wrong court decisions.
@ Jeffrey H
ReplyDeleteI think society's extra-negative view of hate crimes come from the fact that hate crimes are extra-negative. ;)
In all seriousness, I think there is some truth to society looking at hate crimes as extra-negative because they are shown a darker truth about a nation where there is not equality or a democracy, although this in itself frightens me,as we have never had equality, and have not had a true democracy in a very long time.
I also think most of society thinks "regular crime" is extra-negative as well; perhaps if we did have equality and a true democracy many of these crimes would not be committed.
Charity E.
Charity,
ReplyDeleteYou made good points, looking at it as if I am a family member it really wouldn’t matter why the person was killed It would be horrible anyway. Looking from the outside I can say that a hate crime seems worse because of the fact that they have this hate and have ignorant ideas about some characteristics. I did not mean the person committing the hate crime needs to die, I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone even if they are not good people. What I meant was that people who commit hate crimes believe that the person with certain characteristics needs to die because they are doing a good thing according to them. I think I phrased that wrong. I also believe it’s a hard thing to argue because a murder is a murder at the end of the day and it is horrible no matter why and how. I just believe that the intention behind each murder is what makes each of them different some worse than others.
To Angelique V.
ReplyDeleteI agree Angie, I think hate crimes are particularly bad because of things that some people cannot avoid or change. It makes one wonder what the incentive is for the perpetrator, when someone hurts someone due to their inherent characteristics they aren’t just hurting that one person. A hate crime is a crime that sends a message to all who share those characteristics, it isn’t motivated by hurting one individual it’s a grander scale crime because it is directed toward a much larger audience.
Mel. E
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that no matter what the crime is and why it is committed, a crime is a crime and it is all wrong in every way. But when it comes to the media in the movie, I believe that they did do their jobs. They informed the world not because it was a gruesome death although that did have something to-do with it, but because why he was killed. The media wanted to inform the world that hate crimes are still going on and that the world hasn’t evolved enough to respect other sexual preferences. And also you stated that it had something to-do with racism and in reality it had nothing to do with that at all it was a white on white crime and it had everything to-do with who he choose to sleep with. I believe that the media became interested in this because it was such a small town and you don’t expect these types of crimes to happen!