Comments on: Hate Crime in Indiana

By: CBrachyrhynchos

CBrachyrhynchos — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:07:58 +0000

BTW, the hate-crime=policing thought argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in Wisc. v. Mitchell.

By: Kristi

Kristi — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:13:49 +0000

Holy shit. I’m another Bloomington resident, who hadn’t heard ANYTHING of this story until just now, and I’m just speechless. I grew up in rural, small-town Indiana, and I love most of the people I’ve known there. But despite my attachment to my home state, I have to admit that we’ve got some seriously fucked up people here. Bloomington is probably one of the best places in the state for diversity and progressive values, but even here we’ve got plenty of the scary types as well. It freaks me out. I love my people and my state but I hate it here sometimes, all the same.

By: little light

little light — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:46:50 +0000

Sorry for the multiple posts, y’all. My browser flipped out. Moderator?

By: little light

little light — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:43:42 +0000

Gabbi:

Policing people’s thoughts is not the answer.

Hate crimes laws are not about policing thought. That goes right up there with "hate crimes laws say minorities are more valuable people than white folks/straight folks/men and their lives are worth more!" in the Hall of Fame of constantly-trumpeted, propagandized arguments against hate-crimes legislation. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, since this argument seems more prone to spreading among well-meaning people that the "more valuable people" one, but I find it, upon examination, pretty disingenuous.

By: Gabbi

Gabbi — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:36:45 +0000

This is why we need a national hate crimes law so these evil scum have no place to run and no defense to hide behind.

It’s not likely that these pieces of shit are going to get away scott free for their crimes. It doesn’t matter if someone is gay or straight, white or black, male or female, you just don’t DO that to a human being and get away with it (generally). Policing people’s thoughts is not the answer.

By: Natasha Yar-Routh

Natasha Yar-Routh — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:33:00 +0000

This is why we need a national hate crimes law so these evil scum have no place to run and no defense to hide behind. May they rot in a windowless cell for the rest of their miserable lives.

By: CBrachyrhynchos

CBrachyrhynchos — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:35:47 +0000

Oh, doing some digging on this in regards to the “why do we need a hate crime law when murder is murder” crowd. The answer is, it’s not. At least not in Indiana.

Under Indiana law (see the Indiana Criminal Code) “sudden heat” is a mitigating factor which bumps the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter, a Class B felony without a lethal weapon. Murder is a 45 year minimum with no possibility for suspension; voluntary manslaughter is six with the possibility for full suspension.

If it goes to a murder trial, they can lay the groundwork for a “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” mitigating factor which will keep them away from a needle and give them the possibilty of eventual parole.

Not that I’m an advocate for the death penalty, by any means. But the “sudden heat” defense isn’t something to sneeze at here.

By: Paige

Paige — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:35:11 +0000

That is just…completely horrific.

Thanks (is that the right word?) for sharing this–someone has to speak out, and it sounds like the media will not be doing that this time around.

How disgusting. :(

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:48:58 +0000

I really, really hope there is a hell and those spineless shitstains find themselves there.

By: BabyPop

BabyPop — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:38:07 +0000

Feministe, thanks for picking this up. I live south of where this occurred, and never heard about it until a week or two ago, when someone posted a thread on the Courier-Journal message board linking to some reporting about the incident. Read at your own risk of being completely nauseated.