There is an interesting claim in Massachusetts where three women are charged with a hate crime for allegedly beating a gay man at a train station. In their defense, lawyers are arguing that it is effectively impossible for the women to commit a hate crime because they are lesbians.
The arrest of Felicia Stroud, 18, her sister Erika Stroud, 21, of Dorchester, and Lydia Sanford, 20, of Dorchester has revised the ongoing controversy over hate crimes, which many question on free speech grounds. The laws are also controversial because they can be used to significantly increase sentencing based on allegations of a crime against a protected class.
The women are charged with assault and battery with intent to intimidate and face up to a 10 years.
The mother of the two Stroud defendants, Carolyn Euell, 38, insists that they “can’t be hateful” because they are lesbians.
The two sisters and one of their domestic partners, Lydia Sanford, are accused of viciously beating the man after he bumped them with his backpack on a stairwell. The victim said that they shouted anti-gay comments as they beat him — ultimately allegedly breaking his nose.
One comment on the case stood out. Civil-rights attorney Chester Darling is quoted as saying “[n]0 one should go to court. It’s knuckle justice. It’s a fair exchange.”
The issue of people in protect groups being charged under hate crimes has been raised before. Some people in the African-American community, for example, have argued that it is impossible for blacks to be racists. There is also the issue of whether screaming such slurs is evidence of a hate crime. Yet, there remains the question of how to treat other cases. If such comments are not enough to support a hate crime in this case, there remains the other cases involving defendants who insist that, while they may have used anti-gay or racist terms, their actions are not motivated by the status of the victims. What do you think?
Source: Boston
3 against one? thats a fair “knuckle justice” exchange…now if it was 3 gay guys against one lesbian that would be different how?
Well, here’s one Black person who doesn’t hate anyone. Unless, of course, your feet’s too big.
This is what happens when you try to “improve” the First Amendment.
I agree with you lottakatz. In addition this is exactly what I was trying to point out the other day. Being a member of an oppressed group does not translate into being a good person. Lesbians are discriminated against by many in our society. As such, this discrimination is unjust and should be rectified. What cannot be claimed is being a lesbian makes any action one commits fine and dandy.
Anon got it right IMO, it’s about the power, about feeling better about yourself (empowerment) than someone else. Every group can be guilty of some ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ or hate against against some other group.
The problem with hate crimes laws is that they are a ‘pile on’ charge IMO. Every crime that can be committed due to hate should (and I’d bet could) be prosecuted under another statute on the books. I don’t like them on the basis of their potential for misuse to impinge upon the First Amendment.
Most certainly one can commit a hate crime gant someone else of their group. One possible reaso is self-hatred of whatever it is they are; lesbian against lesbin, black against black, etc.
It reminds me of the problems with drug laws. Have a low level amount of a drug that results in mandatory sentencing equal to someone who has a lot of it, it makes no sense. Take some words yelled during a beating that becomes equal to talkingdogs example of cross burning. Both minmize the seriousness othe latter behaviors.
Where s the sense or lesson in treating all levels the same?
Thanks Heather for Google tip.
Áll who want to protect themselves from Googles new privacy policy can go here to find at least one way to fight it.
At least until proven ineffective, let’s hope it works
http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_google_privacy/?source=fb
Have already found at least one case where they scanned one site I was visiting and used that to pick an ad to show me in the next site visited.
Is that fair, or is it advanced servicing of your needs. Make your own choice.
What’s a matter, didn’t they like his liquor?
You see this at a lot of feminists blogs as well, the idea being that racism, sexism, has some required element of power to it, and so a member of a supposedly powerless group cannot be sexist/racist/ to another group, simply because they lack the institutionalized power.
Of course, a lot of you dopes support feminists because you are eager to look the other way.
FYI:
http://panachereport.com/channels/hip%20hop%20gallery/BlkGayBashing.htm
Interesting. I wasn’t aware that being a lesbian exempted a woman from having the ability to carry out behavior that was, um, hateful. Let’s first address the mother of the alleged culprits. Maybe she didn’t get the memo or doesn’t quite fully understand what her daughter is being accused of here, assault and battery. She should be concerned with figuring out where she failed as a parent or what steps she missed in the process, because she obviously raised two unproductive elements and added them to our society. These young women physically harmed someone and they deserved to be punished for that. The victim bumped into them with his backpack in a stairwell? So this warranted a physical attack, plus they yelled anti-gay slurs at the victim. Lock them up and throw away the key.
Let’s also cut the crazy-talk that “black people can’t be racist.” – False. When you repress a person for the period of time that blacks have been repressed, anger and hatred can build up and spread like poison and yes, result in what the law defines as a “hate-crime.” I really don’t see anything controversial about “hate-crime” laws. The laws are necessary and in my opinion applied correctly.
Hate crime laws are very stupid, yet fit very nicely into a hopelessly ridiculous legal paradigm such as ours. The lawyer’s defense of the lesbians is stupid too, but that is mainly because his having to argue against this hate-crime is stupid. Why would it be impossible for a lesbian to hate gays? There are many straight people who are repusled by gay men but are intrigued and are favorable toward lesbians. So why couldn’t the same apply to lesbians? Hate crime laws are written by those who believe in the ability to read minds.
Want a war to end all wars? Put 100 lesbians on the rag in Iraq.
From Heather Gatimu’s post:
“Some lesbians are very hostile to males, gay or otherwise.”
A gay male friend expressed that same feeling to me several years ago. He told me he was sometimes intimidated by lesbians.
Hate is just another word for “you ain’t exactly one of us.”
I agree that the concept of hate crimes is troubling. It is also troubling that the defense is claiming that lesbians can’t possibly hateful. Anyone or any group can have biases or act in hateful ways against anyother person or group.
I was in a class with a black guy who could not get it straight that jokes deprecating Asians, Samoans, Mexicans was not OK. He would just choose some other ethnic group – not white because most of the class was white, and not black. This proved to me that people may be prejudiced no matter what their race may be. Some lesbians are very hostile to males, gay or otherwise. These ladies just sound like they wanted to fight. If we don’t sanction this behavior, how are we going to stop it?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, hate crime laws are stupid. Any crime with a mens rea component can and often does has hate as a motivation, but mens rea isn’t enough for most crimes – an actus reus is required. Hatred isn’t illegal. Acting upon it can be.
As one who has witnessed real hate crimes–like when the guys with the tents on their heads come out at night and shoot your dog in the front yard and call ya N— lover and burn a cross on the corner intersection of Rural Route N at hyw 37 in Southern Illlinoois in 1975. And I say Southern Illinois with a big S.
So, this elevation of a crime to a higher level here with lesbian slurs being thrown about is a bit much and the law is vague and overbroad.
And the saga goes on and on….try legislating stupidity..