I'll add my comments later. I have to go to class.

I doubt it. During the trial didn't someone testify that they could tell he was "gay" and wanted to get him for it. I think one of the girlfriends broke down and admitted something along those lines too. It was a few years back and I think was pretty clear.



It seems, from the article at least, that the two men admitted to the killing because they thought it would get them shorter sentences.



6 years is a long time to stand by a story don't you think. This isn't one of those cases where from the start the men stood by their innocence and/or a different motive.

This issue, which I know some people have, is whether there should be anything considered a "hate-crime," but if one agrees that there should be, I really don't see how one could argue this wasn't one.

-Dolce

Is it 1984 yet? ;-)

Well, there seems to be a Bush in office, so possibly. :wink:

-Dolce

A bush is better than a TV.

This is bullshit. He was killed for the fact that he was gay. I can't believe people would actually believe it wasn't a hate crime.

Anyone can attack me for my opinion...but.. :wink:

So why do hate crimes happen? Because theres stupid ignorabt people who have their own set of preconceived notions and are too close-minded to listen to anything else that might be out there, and that jsut maybe their wrong about their ideas. (Not just that but that's part of it.)

So when something is being re-examined and there's the possibility that something that was believed was wrong and there's new evidence for it, what happens? It's bullshit. And people won't hear anything else.

THAT' BS and hypocricy, when you say that before you have even seen the show and hear their arguement they might have.

With that, said, after having seen the show, I do think it kinda exploits (was looking for Mel Gibson's name in the end credits :wink:)the subject in that the network is just doing it for the ratings, but it wasn't biased or anything...mayben the reporters kinda played devil's advocate a couple of times but that's it.

And because of that it's a waste of time, it's jsut interviews, there are no reasons to believe the people being interviewed are being truthful, and MANY to believe they are lying, including contradictions and things that jsut don't make sense?

You don't actually hit the victim and you think not revealing that kind of information might be better for you? That's pretty stupid. So it didn't change my mind in any way, but does it ultimately matter? What was done has no excuse wether it was done under the influence of drugs, to rob him, or because he was gay, it's the same thing and the way they are viewed shouldn't changed, even if it wasn't actually done because of his sexual orientation, which I don't think is true.

Aren't most crimes out of hate in some way shape or form.

BTTF, no. Hate crimes are specific and targetted due to particular discussions adressing a cultural and/or ethnic group. All crimes are violent, not necessarily hate crimes. And beyond that, many crimes involve personal animosity, but not consistent violence targetted at an entire group. There is a difference between robbing a house, freaking out, and shooting someone, than there is with specifically killing someone because they are gay, and encouraging a discourse about targetting gays in specific.

Now, should that necessarily come out in the sentence of the individual who is responsible for the crime? Some argue no, because, as you said, either way the victim is hurt of dead. But I do think there needs to be some broader information and approach to hate crime and hate crime discourse. By bringing these issues up in court, it is at least a warning that we, as a society, do not advocate violence against a certain group just because of the color of their skin or who they like to kiss. Basically, we need to discourage that, and while I'd love to think that their are no ears that would listen to this kind of crap, there clearly are many. How do we disuade that kind of discussion?

Maybe not through individual trials, maybe yes. I lean towards yes right now because the court is one of the only spaces that does care to make this distinction, and people still listen to these cases. I guess if someone could find an alternative was of spreading consciousness about hate crimes/ consciousness, then you could just trial everyone on murder of 1st degree. Until then, I maintain that it should be included if the crime was a hate crime or not.

They can argue it wasn't, and maybe they'll get off, but even if they do, I hope this doesn't turn around the incorporation of sexual orientation related agression as a potential crime.