Hate Crime?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

[i]Woman tortured for at least a week, officials say

(CNN) – Six West Virginia residents have been charged with kidnapping, torturing and sexually assaulting a Charleston woman for at least a week, the Logan County Sheriff’s Department said Monday.

Sheriff’s deputies went Saturday to a Big Creek, West Virginia, residence in response to an anonymous tip that a woman was being held against her will, the department said in a news release.

As they spoke with a woman on the front porch, "a female inside the residence limped toward the door with her arms held out, saying, “Help me.”

The 23-year-old woman had stab wounds on her left leg and bruises around her eyes, authorities said. The wounds were about a week old, the release said.

“Deputies found her with two black eyes, part of her hair had been pulled out, she had lacerations on her neck, and she had been physically, mentally and sexually abused,” Logan County Sheriff W.E. Hunter said.

The victim was forced to eat rat and dog feces and drink from the toilet, according to the criminal complaint filed in magistrate court, The Associated Press reported.

Deputies arrested Frankie Brewster, 49; her son Bobby, 24; Danny J. Combs, 20, of Harts, West Virginia; and George A. Messer, 27, Karen Burton, 46, and Alisha Burton, 23, all of Chapmanville, West Virginia. All six were held Monday in lieu of $100,000 bond each, and all have asked for court-appointed public defenders, according to AP.

Charges range from kidnapping and torturing to malicious wounding and battery.

Those arrested are white and the victim is black, and the FBI plans to investigate it as a possible hate crime, according to AP. The sheriff’s department requested the FBI’s participation, an agency spokesman told AP.[/i]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/10/woman.tortured/index.html

Maybe I’m too overwhelmed with horror to view this clearly, but I can’t understand why they would need to consider labeling this a hate crime. I think…really, I think that the people who did this should receive life sentences. If ever a group of people were too sick or evil to be free, this is them.

I’m okay with hate crimes legislation, but I think that should be reserved for things like harassment. Stuff that carries insufficient penalty and could stand to be beefed up.

Torturing a person for a week severely enough that she would surely have died before long? That should carry so heavy a penalty, it can’t be beefed up.

2

I hate the term hate crime. This is a horrible crime. It shouldn’t matter what color anyone is.

3

Its a crime. There is no such thing as a hate crime.

4

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Its a crime. There is no such thing as a hate crime.[/quote]

There are, however, such things as crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical disability/impairment. The term “hate crime” is a shorthand for referring to crimes directed toward one of these protected classes.

The question is whether or not classes need to be protected specifically, and whether or not aggression motivated by hostility toward one of these classes ought to be punished more severely than the same crime without such motivation.

In general, however, I agree that “hate crimes” legislation is a bad thing; I don’t agree that there should be protected classes.

5

[quote]nephorm wrote:
In general, however, I agree that “hate crimes” legislation is a bad thing; I don’t agree that there should be protected classes.
[/quote]
I would also argue that legislation does not protect anyone. People who are motivated to commit crime don’t care about the laws which make certain classes of crime more severely punishable–in fact, it probably incites more rage against that “protected” class.

6


Pictured clockwise from the upper left are Frankie Brewster, 49; Bobby Brewster, 24; Danny Combs, 20; George Messer, 27; Alisha Burton, 22; and Karen Burton, 46.

7

[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Its a crime. There is no such thing as a hate crime.

There are, however, such things as crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical disability/impairment. The term “hate crime” is a shorthand for referring to crimes directed toward one of these protected classes.

The question is whether or not classes need to be protected specifically, and whether or not aggression motivated by hostility toward one of these classes ought to be punished more severely than the same crime without such motivation.[/quote]

What I’m struggling with is the concept that this crime might need its motivations explored in order to determine the severity of punishment. To me it would seem to have reached the very apex of criminal behavior. Murder wouldn’t be more heinous, because this was a murder in progress.

The consideration of this as a hate crime adds insult to injury, in my opinion. I honestly can’t think of a more atrocious crime. Doesn’t atrocity trump hate?

8

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Torturing a person for a week severely enough that she would surely have died before long? That should carry so heavy a penalty, it can’t be beefed up.
[/quote]

Whether the penalty can be beefed up isn’t the issue. It’s whether each element of each crime can be proved. They have been charged with various criminal offenses under state law. The FBI is investigating to determine whether they can be also charged with a “hate crime” which is a federal offense.

EDIT: Actually, there is no specific “hate crime”. Civil rights violation is the federal offense.

9

Even if federal charges aren’t brought, the FBI works closely with state/local authorities on investigations and makes available FBI resources and forensic expertise. I think calling in the FBI make make this case less costly for Logan County to prosecute alone.

10

I wonder how many total teeth there are among the 6 of them.

I say maybe 30.

I don’t know that there needs to be federal charges added to what they have already done. The only benefit would be if the federal conviction offered life as a minimum, and the death penalty as a maximum.

11

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Torturing a person for a week severely enough that she would surely have died before long? That should carry so heavy a penalty, it can’t be beefed up.

Whether the penalty can be beefed up isn’t the issue. It’s whether each element of each crime can be proved. They have been charged with various criminal offenses under state law. The FBI is investigating to determine whether they can be also charged with a “hate crime” which is a federal offense.
[/quote]

I understand all of that. I do. What I don’t understand is why we seemingly have to gather up half a dozen offenses to prosecute. Why don’t we have a category of crime that suits this situation?

Kidnapped, raped, stabbed, poisoned, beaten…she was tortured nearly to death. Had she died, they wouldn’t put together a laundry basket of small crimes to prosecute. They would prosecute the whole. Murder.

Though of course I understand that they need to do whatever will improve the likelihood of harsh penalty. Still, it frustrates me.

Isn’t kidnapping a federal offense?

Oh, and the photos. Brrr. This case is freaking me out, a little.

12

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I understand all of that. I do. What I don’t understand is why we seemingly have to gather up half a dozen offenses to prosecute. Why don’t we have a category of crime that suits this situation?

Kidnapped, raped, stabbed, poisoned, beaten…she was tortured nearly to death. Had she died, they wouldn’t put together a laundry basket of small crimes to prosecute. They would prosecute the whole. Murder.

Though of course I understand that they need to do whatever will improve the likelihood of harsh penalty. Still, it frustrates me.
[/quote]

The point isn’t just to improve the likelihood of a harsh penalty. The point is to make sure that if they lose on one charge, they don’t lose on them all. Example:

Let’s say that there is a fictional charge of “Rapenapping.” Rapenapping, for purposes of this discussion, would be kidnapping with the intent to rape.

Let’s say they charged a fictional person with this crime, and only this crime, and during the trial it surfaced that there never was an act that met the jurisdictional definition of “rape.” So there was only kidnapping. But they didn’t charge the defendant with kidnapping, they charged him or her with rapenapping. Defendant is found “not guilty” of rapenapping under the statute. Defendant goes free. Double jeopardy applies, and the defendant cannot be retried with a different set of charges.

So the prosecution strategy is to charge every possible offense they can up front. If there were a more inclusive category, they might not use it if it precluded them from charging the defendant with the individual crimes.

WRT kidnapping: Kidnapping is probably only federal issue if it is done across state lines.

13

What I have a hard time rectifying is this-

Why do human rights apply to people who have shown the ability to act in such an inhuman way?

I can’t help but feel that when a person or a group does something like this, they forfeit their human rights.

Does anybody else ever get that same or similar idea?

14

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I can’t help but feel that when a person or a group does something like this, they forfeit their human rights.

Does anybody else ever get that same or similar idea?
[/quote]

When you are convicted of a crime, you do lose a portion of your rights. The rights prior to and following conviction are a result of human imperfection and limited ability to perceive the truth.

15

If neither of these crimes are considered hate crimes then…

…then no way could this one be.

16

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
If neither of these crimes are considered hate crimes then…

…then no way could this one be.[/quote]

Absolutely true.

The whole concept of hate crimes should offend every American. It requires the acceptance of a notion of “protected classes”, an un-American concept at its core. It also requires an impossible amount of insight into the deepest recess of the human mind at the time a crime is committed. Instead, hate crimes laws are only used when it is politically correct and expedient to do so.

The three sets of crimes mentioned here(original poster and JTF’s two above) are all absolutely heinous and were committed by animals. The perpetrators should be treated as such and I don’t see how any notion of a “hate crime” would be necessary for them to get what they deserve.

17

[quote]nephorm wrote:
The point isn’t just to improve the likelihood of a harsh penalty. The point is to make sure that if they lose on one charge, they don’t lose on them all. Example:

Let’s say that there is a fictional charge of “Rapenapping.” Rapenapping, for purposes of this discussion, would be kidnapping with the intent to rape.

Let’s say they charged a fictional person with this crime, and only this crime, and during the trial it surfaced that there never was an act that met the jurisdictional definition of “rape.” So there was only kidnapping. But they didn’t charge the defendant with kidnapping, they charged him or her with rapenapping. Defendant is found “not guilty” of rapenapping under the statute. Defendant goes free. Double jeopardy applies, and the defendant cannot be retried with a different set of charges.

So the prosecution strategy is to charge every possible offense they can up front. If there were a more inclusive category, they might not use it if it precluded them from charging the defendant with the individual crimes.

WRT kidnapping: Kidnapping is probably only federal issue if it is done across state lines.[/quote]

Okay. That makes sense. I feel considerably mollified. Thanks.

18

Personally, I think crimes like this deserve the death penalty. We shouldn’t limit it to only first-degree murder. Child molesters and sick pieces of garbage like this should be eligible.

That said, I highly dislike the idea of “hate” crimes. The only difference between an assault and an assault motivated by racial or other animus is the motivation, and extra punishment for the motivation runs too close to punishment of ideas for me.

19

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Pictured clockwise from the upper left are Frankie Brewster, 49; Bobby Brewster, 24; Danny Combs, 20; George Messer, 27; Alisha Burton, 22; and Karen Burton, 46.[/quote]

When white met trash…

20

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Personally, I think crimes like this deserve the death penalty. We shouldn’t limit it to only first-degree murder. Child molesters and sick pieces of garbage like this should be eligible.
[/quote]

I prefer life in prison for a number of reasons. Some are moral, of course, but those are largely personal.

Other reasons I think of as practical. The higher cost of housing an inmate on death row and of dealing with the appeals, for example.

And then there’s justice. I think justice is better served by sending these people into the general population. If what I’ve seen in movies is representative, death row is a protected place.

I don’t think the gang in question deserves protection, frankly. I think they deserve to deal with their fellow inmates as best they can for the rest of their long, miserable lives, finally dying without the privilege of choosing a “last meal.”

The death penalty serves no purpose that I can see. Returning to the moral aspect for a moment, I wonder how many of us would be able to fill the role of executioner. I certainly couldn’t. I don’t think it’s fair to ask that others do so in my stead.

It’s important to me that the people who committed this crime never walk free, and in all honesty, I’d be fine with their deaths. I just have a problem with the state killing them.

I’ve been trying to imagine being the social worker or psychologist who came into initial contact with this girl post-rescue. It’s overwhelming to think about.