OTOH, the citizens of Colorado will be paying for this jerk's room and board for the rest of his natural life. Almost makes me wish the US still practiced public hangings.
Also, the habitual-crime charges leave a bad taste in my mouth. Oh well. My sympathies remain with Zapata's family.
OTOH, the citizens of Colorado will be paying for this jerk's room and board for the rest of his natural life. Almost makes me wish the US still practiced public hangings.
Quite frankly, at this point, I don't give a shit if the citizens of Colorado are paying for his room and board. I wouldn't care if it was coming out of *my* taxes. I just care that killing me because of the gender I was assigned at birth counts as fucking murder. >_< At least in one part of the world.
OK, he's nutty enough to kill someone because of their sexual preference. That's bad. But why is it worse than being nutty enough to kill someone because they have brown hair, or because their dog barked at night, or any other stupid reason that nutty people come up with to kill people? Did this case, or similar cases, need extra legal horsepower because of a "hate" motivation? Can a person of racial, sexual, gender, and broccoli preference with the value of x who kills a person with the same values in those variables be convicted of a hate crime, even if it can be proved the killer did hate the victim with a purple passion?
Hate crime laws make me feel funny, and not in a good way. We should be beefing up the justice system as a whole, cutting out procedural drek (so ALL CRIMES can be tried in nine months or less, like this "unusually swift decision" was) and investigative bias (cops who don't investigate thoroughly because they lived in a bad neighborhood (or weren't convincingly cisgendered), penny public defenders who don't know how to defend, yadda yadda). Murder is a heinous thing, but adding a hate crime tickbox seems like the beginning of a slippery slope to me, overprotecting some while leaving others out to dry because they were killed without a bias that wasn't on the form.
I have to agree that if someone I loved was murdered, it would not matter to me whether it was because of hate, love, envy, greed or boredom.
If I understand it correctly, the "hate crime" thing is a kind of counterbias, kind of like affirmative action, since statistically people tend to get off with a lesser punishment - if any - if they kill someone the jury and judge are inwardly glad to be rid of.
All civilised societies ascribe diferent punishments to the same crime based on the motive involved.
Hate crime laws indicate society's statistically supported belief that if you're willing to commit violent crimes against specific groups of people, with *zero* provocation, and claim justification because of the colour of their skin or the configuration of their junk, you're more dangerous and more likely to reoffend than someone who killed a specific guy because he hated that specific guy.
Hate Crime laws are no different from any other law that includes motive - like, say, the difference between murder-1, murder-2, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death.
They indicate society's statistically supported belief that if you're willing to commit violent crimes against specific groups of people, with *zero* provocation, and claim justification because of the colour of their skin or the configuration of their junk, you're more dangerous and more likely to reoffend than someone who killed a specific guy because that specific guy tormented him at work every day for five years.
Perhaps because so many people approve of demonizing specific members of society extra effort is required to show that that is minority position and not a valid incentive for rage? I'm sure the court would have no difficulty throwing out the broccoli-preference argument as frivolous. What if the perp had spotted the victim wagging his genitals at his sister? Or had caught him 'romancing' his mother's embalmed corpse? Or humping a goat? Or stuffing a child into a car trunk? Or harvesting stem-cells from aborted fetuses? Or stoning women accused of adultery? Or dancing naked with a decapitated chicken in a pentagram? Some judges might give the perp a reduced sentence based on those circumstances.
People are a nasty brutish lot and given half a chance they will approve the eradication of people that don't share their values. Just which values 'merit' which level of outrage changes over time and whim. Just for shits and giggles you could set up a poll listing the worst crimes you can imagine to see how often people tick the 'kill the bastard' box.
Still, the original hole in the Universe the victim left ain't filled, damnitte. The sorrow that crimes such as these are still contemplable is vast...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:29 pm (UTC)Also, the habitual-crime charges leave a bad taste in my mouth. Oh well. My sympathies remain with Zapata's family.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:33 pm (UTC)True.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 12:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 01:06 am (UTC)The cheapest way to get him off the public coffers and off the streets is if someone were to kill him before he got to prison.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 04:59 pm (UTC)20+ years of jail time < Execution = UR DOIN IT RONG!
Agreed.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 08:40 am (UTC)Hate crime laws make me feel funny, and not in a good way. We should be beefing up the justice system as a whole, cutting out procedural drek (so ALL CRIMES can be tried in nine months or less, like this "unusually swift decision" was) and investigative bias (cops who don't investigate thoroughly because they lived in a bad neighborhood (or weren't convincingly cisgendered), penny public defenders who don't know how to defend, yadda yadda). Murder is a heinous thing, but adding a hate crime tickbox seems like the beginning of a slippery slope to me, overprotecting some while leaving others out to dry because they were killed without a bias that wasn't on the form.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 09:28 am (UTC)If I understand it correctly, the "hate crime" thing is a kind of counterbias, kind of like affirmative action, since statistically people tend to get off with a lesser punishment - if any - if they kill someone the jury and judge are inwardly glad to be rid of.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 11:34 am (UTC)/thought it said everyone was created equal in the paperwork here somewhere.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 12:28 pm (UTC)All civilised societies ascribe diferent punishments to the same crime based on the motive involved.
Hate crime laws indicate society's statistically supported belief that if you're willing to commit violent crimes against specific groups of people, with *zero* provocation, and claim justification because of the colour of their skin or the configuration of their junk, you're more dangerous and more likely to reoffend than someone who killed a specific guy because he hated that specific guy.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 01:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 12:26 pm (UTC)They indicate society's statistically supported belief that if you're willing to commit violent crimes against specific groups of people, with *zero* provocation, and claim justification because of the colour of their skin or the configuration of their junk, you're more dangerous and more likely to reoffend than someone who killed a specific guy because that specific guy tormented him at work every day for five years.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-23 01:11 pm (UTC)People are a nasty brutish lot and given half a chance they will approve the eradication of people that don't share their values. Just which values 'merit' which level of outrage changes over time and whim. Just for shits and giggles you could set up a poll listing the worst crimes you can imagine to see how often people tick the 'kill the bastard' box.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-22 11:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-24 10:54 pm (UTC)