Double Standards in Hate Crime Reporting
May 31, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
This was reported heavily in the national media (hat tip to the Black Kettle) :
The 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming who was savagely beaten, lashed to a fence, and left to die near Laramie by two homophobic men…
This was not:
…two gay men abducted and drugged 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in 1999, bound him with duct tape, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him with foreign objects, repeatedly raped him, gave him an enema of urine, and left him to die of suffocation.
Why? Near as I can tell, because the latter might “reinforce homophobic stereotypes”. If you have other ideas, I’d love to hear them.
However, nobody ever thought that perhaps the former would reinforce homophobic-ophobic stereotypes (Yes, I just made that up. Defined: the fear of people who have been labelled as “homophobic” by the media or the gay lobby.)
Oh come now, Shane. We all know gays *can’t* commit hate crimes.
As per usual, lets take a look at a number of other possible reasons behind what happened:
1. Matthew was not a minor, Jesse was. The press may treat them differently because of their age.
2. Matthew’s family encouraged press coverage, Jesse’s may not have (and in fact, could have discouraged it – who knows?)
You jump to conclusions too easily and lift your posts from wikipedia.
You don’t follow links do ya, Smarter than… who?
If you had read the first sentence of this post you would have seen the source of my material.
“You jump to conclusions too easily…”
I would say that is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this case, I ain’t no kettle. My source is… literally!
It is obviously the incredibly powerful gay lobby at work, as they conspire to take over North America. Funny how the right-wing homophobes are always speaking of this gay lobby that is threatening the fabric of society, when in actuality the current gay lobby can’t even get themselves together enough to organize a pride parade.
Have fun with your strange theories about who is conspiring to cover what up, and how to keep the boogeyman from penetrating your sphincter. Meanwhile I am going to plan my wedding to my same-sex partner while spending our child-expense free double-income.
I didn’t say there was some ultra-powerful organization orchestrating events from “behind the curtain”. You can caricature the discussion if you want but it doesn’t help.
I am also not talking about the “fabric of society”. I am talking about fairness: fairness of reporting, fairness of what is considered a story. The author of the article I cited talked about the fairness of similar offences being punished similarly, instead of making some crimes worse than others, by virtue of their motivation. A murder is a murder is a murder. The thoughts of the perpetrator should be irrelevant.
The entire concept of hate crime is a double standard, implying that one form of murder is more offensive than another. All forms of murder require hate, no matter what the catalyst for the motivation. Hate crimes legislation was designed to focus more importance on certain crimes over others. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that the media takes biased legislation to it’s natural conclusion.
A murder is a murder is a murder.
People get murdered in the US every day. Some make the news, others don’t.
Again, there are a miriad of reasons why this is the case, and the afore mentioned conclusions and the “controversy” as a result is ridiculous and based on ideology rather on looking at the reasons behind why things are reported and why things are not reported.
America is a free country, if you don’t like what the press prints and feel that there is a market for the press you would like to publish, then start your own media empire and let the invisible hand be your guide. OH RIGHT, that is what the internet is for… my bad!
“The entire concept of hate crime is a double standard, implying that one form of murder is more offensive than another.”
We distinguish between manslaughter, homicide and genocide. All murder is odious…some are worse.
Ah… so we should all sit down and shut up then unless we want to step up to the plate and start our own media empire. Right. Stifle dissent by making the opportunity of voicing your opinion only accessible by the rich elite. Now I understand why you say the things you do.
And for balbulican… homicide is homicide is homicide.
Not unless you’re Gertrude Stein. The two great systems humans use to define the moral universe – religion and law – disagree with you.
No, I like it when you say stupid shit. Please don’t shut up, it makes my day.
Btw, if you are also interested in some stupid shit, check out what Alberta is bringing to the rest of the world.
http://www.bvcsm.com/
Here are a few of my favourite stupid things they print on their website:
“Dinosaurs and Humans” display shows considerable evidence that not only did dinosaurs exist recently, but also that humans existed with them. This evidence is fatal to the evolutionary dogma which has dinosaurs extinct at least 60 million years before humans evolved.
“Terrible Lizards” display demonstrate dinosaurs were one of God’s greatest creations (Job, 40 & 41).
“Fossils and the Flood” is a fantastic visual arrangement that contains only genuine, museum quality fossils and a giant model of Noah’s ark. The museum presents the answer to why fossils are profound evidence for the flood of Noah.
And to top it all off (and to bring it back to homophobia for all of those who are not affraid of homophobia-phobia): Admission: $5/adult, $3 for children 12 and under and seniors, families (A Father, Mother and children) get in for $15
Sorry gay dad’s and mom’s we are going to have to charge you extra! Ha ha ha ha ha, this is super awesome stupid shit.
And, CBC even reported on this. See, no more bias at the CBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmon.....ml?ref=rss
You missed the best one. This allegedly “scientific” museum thinks that the most important work of biology of the nineteenth century was something entitled “The Origin of THE Species”. Very impressive scholarship in evidence there.
[...] h/t “Smarter Than Ezra”, at “The Politic”. [...]
Sez Wonderwoman:
The entire concept of hate crime is a double standard, implying that one form of murder is more offensive than another.
Hate crime laws are typically extremely difficult to prosecute in the first place because it obliges the prosecution to demonstrate motive and intent, not merely the act itself. Proving motive is extremely difficult – and even in a fairly obvious case like Matthew Shepard, the court proceedings were quite lengthy as the motive for the killing was central point of the prosecution case.
Second, such laws do not change the punishment for murder per se, but rather exact an additional censure for an aggravating factor in the commission of the offense. This is little different than the distinction between mugging someone and stabbing them afterwards. Two crimes were committed – robbery and assault. The notion of ‘hate crime’ simply codifies another category of behaviour that warrants censure before the courts.
The case cited as an example of a “double standard” may or may not be a “hate crime” per se. Did the perpetrators do their act because the victim was heterosexual? Or did they engage in a murder for its own sake? (Recognizing that many murderers have erotic attachments to the violence itself)
The claim that it reflects a double standard is suspect.
[...] then there is the daily diet of Amerikan-style hate that spews out of the Blogging Tories like raw sewage. Isn’t that nice? Comparing the death of a kid who was killed because of who he was to that of [...]
Well said, Grog.
Hate crime legislation is good to the extent that it specifically censures crimes committed out of impersonal hate, not for material gain or deriving from some highly involved personal relationship with the victim. And you are right, where such legislation becomes problematic is in its enforcement.
Enforcing hate crimes legislation relies heavily the judgement of the courts to determine what constitutes sufficiently criminal impersonal hate.
Legislation seeking to protect homosexuals from hate crimes should say just that: specifically define hateful criminal acts perpetrated SOLELY BECAUSE the victim was known, or presumed, to participate in homosexual behaviour or socialize with that set. And hate crimes should only apply where impersonal hate was the SOLE motive, otherwise Shane does have a valid point: it is just another murder.
Hate crimes legislation helps to publicly, and loudly, censure criminal acts perpetrated out of impersonal hate. However, prosecuting “hate speech” is quite another matter.
Also, we should put no stock in any legislation that defines criminal hate against one’s “sexual orientation;” such language not making sound jurisprudence.
Simon would have made a great pamphleteer. In Munich. In the 20s and 30s. With Ernst. Am I becoming too obvious here?