FL - Police Chief Daniel Saylor for child rape coverup, Windermere, 2011

[Steely Dan]

I share your opinion of hate crime laws and the similar themes. I am usually in the minority here when legislation in a victim's name is suggested. So few of them cover truly new territory that I don't see their value other than making people *feel* like the victim didn't die in vain, and that something has changed because of the tragedy.

It is my firm belief that most of these laws clog up the books with technicalities and in some cases benefit the criminal when the appeals roll around. Murder is already illegal. We already allow for aggravating circumstances to be considered during sentencing.

I make the same argument about breed ban laws. Having a vicious dog is already illegal. If you want to change things force the prosecutors and the judges to actually enforce the laws on the books. Don't plea don't murder cases to manslaughter and turn them loose. Charge owners criminally and penalize them financially when their dogs harm people. The legal system does not have to be as complicated as it is. The statutes for any given state don't have to four thousand pages long.

But to me that is different than cops covering up crimes, teachers raping students, bankers stealing money, lawyers solving personal grievances by burying someone in so much paperwork they can't afford to fight it..... those are abuses of power. Using your position and access to victimize someone.

Of course circling back on my own logic that should be covered largely under existing laws and judges should be able to address it through sentencing allowances. It is much more cost effective for the voters to approve changes to the sentencing guidelines than to create new laws for each individual circumstance, rewrite the statutes, let every single one of them go through an appeals process the first handful of times the new statute is use.
et
A cop who covers up a crime for a friend should do more time than a plumber who covers for a buddy who committed the same crime. The cop voluntarily said they would perform their job ethically, they are directly betraying the victim of the crime in a way that the plumber is not, they have access to cover the crimes in a way that the plumber does not.

A teacher has access to your child that joe schmoe does not. A teacher has a level of built trust and authority that joe schmoe does not. It is a betrayal to the victim that is different than a stranger harming them. The sentencing guidelines should allow the judge to punish them more harshly in my opinion.

BBM

I've been a supporter of hate crime laws but that's the most cogent argument I've read against them. You've got me thinking.

 

[Nova]

I had to take a couple of days to think this one over. In NO way am I supporting the chief! So please don't think I'm going "there!" :crazy: (LOL) Hear me out!

I am not a huge supporter of the relatively new genre of "HATE CRIMES" because I think ALL CRIMES are hate crimes, and I don't necessarily believe that if hatred fuels the crime, it makes the action worse than if stupidity or insanity fuels the crime.

IOW, I don't believe that a crime against a woman is more horrible if committed by a misogynist. If, for instance, I was raped and murdered by some idiot, I wouldn't give a hoot whether his motivation was hatred of women in general, hatred of me, or just circumstantial. Whether I (as a hypothetical victim) were a target because of who I am or what I am doesn't mean as much to me as the fact that I am now raped and murdered!

HOWEVER, after much thought, I am left with my original first impressions. When a person has sworn to uphold the law and protect the public, and then they dishonor that oath and put the public at further risk, then yes, the punishment should be harsher.

The phrase "hate crime" is really unfortunate, I agree.

Such crimes should be called what they are: terrorism. Because that's the point and that's why the penalty is higher: because the aim of the crime is to terrorize both the victim and others like her on the basis of some immutable characteristic (sex, race, sexuality, etc.) over which s/he has no control.

(The other function of such statutes is to make it clear that the state WILL prosecute crimes against certain peoples in areas where such crimes were not prosecuted in the past. It's fine to say an assault on a gay person should be treated the same as an assault on a straight person, but in many jurisdictions that has not been the case; instead, one could batter or even kill a gay person and get a slap on the wrist. So-called "hate crime" statutes serve notice that the days of winking at assaults on gay people are over.)

 

[Nova]

I share your opinion of hate crime laws and the similar themes. I am usually in the minority here when legislation in a victim's name is suggested. So few of them cover truly new territory that I don't see their value other than making people *feel* like the victim didn't die in vain, and that something has changed because of the tragedy.

It is my firm belief that most of these laws clog up the books with technicalities and in some cases benefit the criminal when the appeals roll around. Murder is already illegal. We already allow for aggravating circumstances to be considered during sentencing.

I make the same argument about breed ban laws. Having a vicious dog is already illegal. If you want to change things force the prosecutors and the judges to actually enforce the laws on the books. Don't plea don't murder cases to manslaughter and turn them loose. Charge owners criminally and penalize them financially when their dogs harm people. The legal system does not have to be as complicated as it is. The statutes for any given state don't have to four thousand pages long.

But to me that is different than cops covering up crimes, teachers raping students, bankers stealing money, lawyers solving personal grievances by burying someone in so much paperwork they can't afford to fight it..... those are abuses of power. Using your position and access to victimize someone.

Of course circling back on my own logic that should be covered largely under existing laws and judges should be able to address it through sentencing allowances. It is much more cost effective for the voters to approve changes to the sentencing guidelines than to create new laws for each individual circumstance, rewrite the statutes, let every single one of them go through an appeals process the first handful of times the new statute is use.
et
A cop who covers up a crime for a friend should do more time than a plumber who covers for a buddy who committed the same crime. The cop voluntarily said they would perform their job ethically, they are directly betraying the victim of the crime in a way that the plumber is not, they have access to cover the crimes in a way that the plumber does not.

A teacher has access to your child that joe schmoe does not. A teacher has a level of built trust and authority that joe schmoe does not. It is a betrayal to the victim that is different than a stranger harming them. The sentencing guidelines should allow the judge to punish them more harshly in my opinion.

BBM: that's fine to say, but how do you make it happen? "Hate crime" legislation is one way of forcing judges to impose harsh penalties even though they personally sympathize with racists and homophobes. As you point out, there are already other types of "special circumstances". Why is this one the problem?

And as I said in my reply to kgeaux, the term "hate crime" is unfortunate, since lots of crimes are motivated by hatred of some sort. We ought to recognize that violence against anyone on the basis of his or her group identity is a form of terrorism and call it what it is.

I'm always puzzled at the arguments against hate crime legislation. It's unfair? To whom? To racists who murder black people? Too bad.

I do agree however that hate crimes are a different issue than the abuse of authority that seems to have occurred in this case.

 

[songline]

I just think that when you are put into a position of public trust that you should be held to a higher standard. I think the same standard should be held for lawyers who bilk their clients too.

ITA :clap::clap::clap:

 

[songline]

I understand your feeling, Dan, but your source says the friend is charged with "a capital offense." So what punishment are you proposing for the cover-up, that they kill the chief twice?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
How about putting him in general population for a year before they kill him. :floorlaugh:

I do not think this is a laughing matter REALLY but you are funny.

 

[impatientredhead]

BBM: that's fine to say, but how do you make it happen? "Hate crime" legislation is one way of forcing judges to impose harsh penalties even though they personally sympathize with racists and homophobes. As you point out, there are already other types of "special circumstances". Why is this one the problem?

And as I said in my reply to kgeaux, the term "hate crime" is unfortunate, since lots of crimes are motivated by hatred of some sort. We ought to recognize that violence against anyone on the basis of his or her group identity is a form of terrorism and call it what it is.

I'm always puzzled at the arguments against hate crime legislation. It's unfair? To whom? To racists who murder black people? Too bad.

I do agree however that hate crimes are a different issue than the abuse of authority that seems to have occurred in this case.

I don't understand why murdering someone because their gay or black is more horrifying than killing them because they are divorcing them, cheating on them, cut them off in traffic, or any other reason.

Every life is supposedly equally important so I don't understand how it is *fair* to make the penalty for killing some people stiffer than killing than other people.

Judges don't have their jobs for life (sans the supreme court). You remove the ones that don't do their jobs well.

moo of course

 

[Nova]

I don't understand why murdering someone because their gay or black is more horrifying than killing them because they are divorcing them, cheating on them, cut them off in traffic, or any other reason.

Every life is supposedly equally important so I don't understand how it is *fair* to make the penalty for killing some people stiffer than killing than other people.

Judges don't have their jobs for life (sans the supreme court). You remove the ones that don't do their jobs well.

moo of course

BBM: except we already do that. We have all sorts of "special circumstances" that attach to violent crimes: the age of the victim, the type of weapon used, whether the crime was in some way sexual, the emotional and mental state of the criminal, etc. and so forth.

Hate crimes do NOT say the life of this victim is more important than the life of another.

Again, the reason we have special circumstances for certain classes of victims is twofold:

1. Because such crimes have been under-punished (or not punished at all) in the past. It wasn't that long ago that a judge in Texas sentenced two men who had robbed and killed a gay man to the minimum sentence (2 years in prison) and APOLOGIZED for having to do so. It's fine to say bad judges can be voted out of office, but most hate crime statutes deal with minorities who lack the political power to remove anyone from the bench. A hate crime special circumstance would have forced that judge to give the killers a more reasonable sentence (though nothing could stop the apology).

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, so-called hate-crime special circumstances recognize that such crimes are intended to do more than merely bring pain and/or death to the immediate victim. Hate crimes against a certain race or gender or sexual orientation are intended to instill terror in all members of that group. When a gang of kids rides around West Hollywood looking for solitary gay men to bash with baseball bats (true case), their intent isn't just to hurt that individual, but to intimidate and terrorize ALL gay men everywhere.

We have laws dealing with terrorism on the books; "hate crime" special circumstances should be considered a subcategory of terrorism laws.

On this much we might agree: whoever came up with the phrase "hate crime" should have to write on the blackboard 1000 times: "The crime in question isn't hatred, it's terrorism."

 

[ForensicPsyche1]

:furious:The crime, felony charges of official misconduct and unlawful compensation for official behavior, carries a maximum 5 year sentence, and the sexual battery -or rape -charge is a "capital felony," and can result in a death sentence or life in prison with a conviction. Lets look again at the question of "Should LE Be Given Double The Sentence For Covering Up Felonies?" Looks like we can't give the rapist/pedophile double unless they put him in for life without parole or death; on the other hand, if they give him double then he'll be in til he's 90 or dead (Life only means 25 or 35 years give or take a few years depending on gain time). That would work.

Now, the Chief himself? If he's the head of all those morally good and upright cops, and sets himself as representative of what it means to uphold the law, what is that, and where the H does that come from??? Shame on him!! I think he needs double or to be charged as an accomplice or something else, and be stripped of his freedom or rights for ever! Unfortunately the criminal justice system doesn't seem to detour from its norm often; the law is the law.......but if we keep pushing maybe it can change?

 

[impatientredhead]

The supreme court has said you cannot execute someone for a crime that does not involve the death of the victim. No one is facing execution for sexual battery, capital or otherwise.

Five states had made laws saying they were going to execute child rapists. The supreme court overturned them all.

 

[impatientredhead]

Nova- you make several good points and in the cases you describe, I agree that I would support enforcement of existing laws (part of my initial argument that these things are already illegal if the prosecutors and judges do their jobs) under terrorism.

I agree that targeting minorities with the intent to intimidate a larger population than the victim is a *hate* crime.

The hate crime laws have lost my support and the support of many because of the way they have been used, misused and abused but people seeking political applause by using them. And there are many cases where the race of the victim had nothing to do with the fact that they were assaulted (could have been anyone else that was there) that the prosecutor chooses to make headlines by calling it a hate crime when the only qualification is that the perp is white and the victim is not.

Racial slurs alone cannot be used as proof of the level of terrorism you are describing. If it was there are many many many white victims that have had degrading terms hurled at them while they were assaulted by an assailant of another race. Uneducated, uncivilized people say horrid things to everyone. That is where the impression that hate crimes say some lives are worth more than others comes from.

Not the fault of the people who had good intentions when the laws were written, but when it is abused by a prosecutor who wants to make headlines by going for the maximum sentence by playing the race card via hate crime laws it takes the power away from the label.

Like a woman who makes false rape allegations casts doubt on true victims by abusing the instant reaction rape charges evoke in people. The impact is much larger than her individual case.

But I still maintain the problem is that we do not enforce the laws that exist, we don't remove prosecutors from office that are soft on crime or more interested in headlines, vote for sentencing guidelines, and remove judges that are Aholes too.

It sounds simple and I know it is not that simple in real life, but we make it more complicated than it has to be as well.

 

[Nova]

Nova- you make several good points and in the cases you describe, I agree that I would support enforcement of existing laws (part of my initial argument that these things are already illegal if the prosecutors and judges do their jobs) under terrorism.

I agree that targeting minorities with the intent to intimidate a larger population than the victim is a *hate* crime.

The hate crime laws have lost my support and the support of many because of the way they have been used, misused and abused but people seeking political applause by using them. And there are many cases where the race of the victim had nothing to do with the fact that they were assaulted (could have been anyone else that was there) that the prosecutor chooses to make headlines by calling it a hate crime when the only qualification is that the perp is white and the victim is not.

Racial slurs alone cannot be used as proof of the level of terrorism you are describing. If it was there are many many many white victims that have had degrading terms hurled at them while they were assaulted by an assailant of another race. Uneducated, uncivilized people say horrid things to everyone. That is where the impression that hate crimes say some lives are worth more than others comes from.

Not the fault of the people who had good intentions when the laws were written, but when it is abused by a prosecutor who wants to make headlines by going for the maximum sentence by playing the race card via hate crime laws it takes the power away from the label.

Like a woman who makes false rape allegations casts doubt on true victims by abusing the instant reaction rape charges evoke in people. The impact is much larger than her individual case.

But I still maintain the problem is that we do not enforce the laws that exist, we don't remove prosecutors from office that are soft on crime or more interested in headlines, vote for sentencing guidelines, and remove judges that are Aholes too.

It sounds simple and I know it is not that simple in real life, but we make it more complicated than it has to be as well.

For the record, I am a gay man who has been the victim of hate crimes (though nothing major; I've been rather lucky, all things considered).

I mention this because I agree entirely with your post. I think the standards for deeming something a "hate crime" should be high and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Merely yelling "" while committing a crime does not make it a hate crime.

So bottom line: I support the concept of "hate crime" as an extenuating circumstance, but I think it must be clear and proven, not just added to get headlines for the D.A.

And I look forward to the day when all violent crimes are treated equally, regardless of the sex, race or sexual orientation of the victim. I just don't think we're there quite yet.

 

[Nova]

Oh, and BTW, for people (and there are a few, though just a few) who claim "hate crime" where none occurred, a special place in Hell should be reserved for them.

The vast majority of minorities, including my husband and I, overlook hate crimes unless real harm is caused. If a few twisted individuals cry "wolf" without good cause, I have no sympathy for them.