His Name Was Andrew

[A_Wanderer]

But don't you see that circumstance isn't a good argument for such laws; it is two tiered and it enshrines + perpetuates a status of vicitimhood.

Arson, assault and murder are crimes themselves; criminalising motive is not helpful or desireable.

 

[anitram]

Fair enough. But it is different here in the US for all sorts of reasons. There were quite a few cross burnings going on, in the United States, which is I think why this policy was created in the first place across different states. This policy was intended to protect people who were being attacked because of their identity/culture/etc.

I don't think hate crimes are unique to other crimes. They are domestic terrorism. It isn't just the one person that is the victim, it is an attack on that entire community that shares that person's identity.

Hate crimes legislation doesn't protect people - it only deals with charging the accused with a different crime and plays a role in the sentencing process. Increased sentences have never been an effective deterrent to crime, much like the death penalty hasn't been an effective deterrent against violent crime.

And you can argue that every violent crime is an attack on the entire community of the victim. Every woman who is sexually assaulted - but why is this not a hate crime? Every child who is molested - but why is this not a hate crime? Every animal researcher whose life is threatened on a daily basis - why is this not a hate crime?

Hate crime legislation consists of selectively picking and choosing groups in a kneejerk fashion in response to the news cycle. I don't believe there is a rational connection between the legislation and the prevention of crime. It's a feel-good measure which I believe tramples equality rights and doesn't do much longterm.

 

[JCOSTER]

Very sad state of mind some people live in. I is truly a disgusting and eerie crime. I say eerie because I can't believe it still goes on.

 

[Harry Vest]

If certain Right Wing American Christians had they're way all Gays would be executed - although I'm sure this happens in all countries it seems like there is more of it in the States. One day justice will be served. You cannot do that to someone and not have it come back to you.

 

[redhotswami]

I don't believe there is a rational connection between the legislation and the prevention of crime. It's a feel-good measure which I believe tramples equality rights and doesn't do much longterm.

Well I disagree. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen anymore, but there is certainly less reportings of people burning crosses at the homes of black residents, or throwing stones, blowing them up, etc.

It may not be perfect, but in the US, especially considering the blood-stained history of racial prejudices, I think it is better than nothing. With about 73% of registered voters polled saying they support hate crimes legislation, it is clear that people believe there is a need for it.

 

[anitram]

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen anymore, but there is certainly less reportings of people burning crosses at the homes of black residents, or throwing stones, blowing them up, etc.

Who is to say there is a correlation between burning crosses and hate crime legislation? Is it not more logical that this is a reflection of changing social values, which were compelled by globalization, integration and differing views of the younger generation rather than it being a reflection of hate crimes legislation?

I mean I understand why you think it's necessary or why 73% may think so. But that doesn't mean that it is or that it is in the best interest of justice or that it's serving the purpose people think it is.

I would boldly predict that if you struck down every piece of legislation in every state, and prosecuted hate crimes under regular criminal code provisions, nothing would change in the rates of hate crimes. Do you honestly believe that this legislation is imperative to prevent burning crosses? That if it was struck down tomorrow, suddenly there would be a rash of such activities?

We are at the point in time where I feel there is no use to this legislation. I'd repeal it, and not because I'm a libertarian. Sorry, A_W.

 

[intedomine]

Anthos murderer has obviously had a misguided upbringing for him to commit such a heinous crime.

Part of his punishment should be a public shaming.

 

[redhotswami]

Who is to say there is a correlation between burning crosses and hate crime legislation? Is it not more logical that this is a reflection of changing social values, which were compelled by globalization, integration and differing views of the younger generation rather than it being a reflection of hate crimes legislation?

i say so. so does the DC gov't. Perhaps the decrease could be a reflection of society's values, but discrimination continues to plague our society today. i'm personally happy that DC banned burning crosses and swastikas. it really really hurts to see stuff like that happen in your own town. hate crime legislation doesn't just increase the penalty basted on the criminal's motivation, it also bans certain acts. without a hate crime policy, what more would the perpetrator be charged, besides destruction of property or whatever it is called, if that person had burned a cross or a swastika in somebody's yard??

I would boldly predict that if you struck down every piece of legislation in every state, and prosecuted hate crimes under regular criminal code provisions, nothing would change in the rates of hate crimes. Do you honestly believe that this legislation is imperative to prevent burning crosses? That if it was struck down tomorrow, suddenly there would be a rash of such activities?

This legislation isn't strictly about cross burning. No, the crimes haven't stopped, and to be honest with you, there are probably loads of activity that goes unreported. However, to me it says a lot when local governments have such laws. What it does is shows that some governments take domestic terrorism very seriously. With all that our federal gov't is doing about terrorism on a global scale (heh, but the flaws of that are meant for other threads), to me, it is comforting to see that the local governments are doing something about the terrorism going on here and by our own citizens. These hate crime policies exist because the local govts believe it is a threat to the community when somebody is attacked or threatened because of race, religion, sex, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin. With all those groups included, and with an increase in sexual orientation motivated crimes, I really don't see why it is such a problem to add sexual orientation to these policies.

Also, loads of groups have sprung up since hate crime legislation was inacted to provide more support for victims, and even the perpetrators. Hate crimes policies have done more than increase punishment, they have played a role in increasing tolerance and awareness.

You may feel there is no need for this legislation, and I respect that. However I'm just going to agree to disagree with you. I believe that in cases such as Andrew's, hate crime legislation is necessary, and it needs to be altered to include sexual orientation.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

She didn't. She asked how many steps it was from one to the other. A legitimate question.

Yes that's it exactly. Thanks martha

 

[onebloodonelife]

This story absolutely sickens me that a human would do this to another human being.

The government is a body of people representative of the population, their homophobia follows public attitudes and doesn't lead it.

Just because something is held as the popular view certainly doesn't mean that it's right or that the government should embrace it. During the civil rights era, the popular view in the South continued to be that African-Americans were less than whites, but the government stepped in. It took a long time for the government to take a pro-civil rights stance, but it did happen. The government's attitude towards homosexuals is no different.

 

[Bonochick]

There was an update about this on the news this morning.

The autopsy revealed that Andrew died of natural causes. Therefore, no charges are being filed, and the police are considering the case to be closed.

 

[Bonochick]

Police Say Gay Man Not Fatally Beaten

Last Edited: Thursday, 29 Mar 2007, 5:29 AM EDT
Created: Thursday, 29 Mar 2007, 5:29 AM EDT

DETROIT -- An elderly man whose death became a cause for gay rights advocates died of natural causes, not from being beaten, authorities said Wednesday.


Police also said they intended to close the investigation into 72-year-old Andrew Anthos' death.

"There's no evidence that an assault occurred," police spokesman James Tate told The Detroit News.

According to family members, Anthos said he was riding a city bus home from the library on Feb. 13 when a young man asked him if he was gay and uttered a slur.

Anthos said the man followed him off the bus and confronted him again. Anthos said he told the man he was gay as he went to help a friend whose wheelchair was stuck in a snowbank, according to his cousin, Athena Fedenis.

Anthos said the attacker struck him in the back of the head with a pipe and ran off. Anthos died Feb 23.

His death drew wide attention, and was cited on the floor of Congress by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., as evidence of the need to extend hate crime legislation to gays.

But the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office concluded that Anthos fell because he had an arthritic neck, and detectives were unable to find witnesses to a beating, police said. Medical Examiner Dr. Carl Schmidt said evidence did not support the report of an attack on Anthos and said a head injury likely came from falling.

It was unclear what police made of the friend's account. Messages seeking comment were left by The Associated Press, but were not immediately returned.

Fedenis said she was shocked.

"I won't let this rest," Fedenis said. "I can't let this tarnish him. I don't want anyone to think it wasn't a hate crime."

 

[diamond]

very sad.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There was an update about this on the news this morning.

The autopsy revealed that Andrew died of natural causes. Therefore, no charges are being filed, and the police are considering the case to be closed.

That's very strange, I wonder..

 

[dazzledbylight]

If it was/is true then................
fucking BIGOT!!!!!

Since it's unclear in the article whether the police got in toucj with the friend Mr Anthos was helping....

....IF it DID happen as stated what if the friend is too scared to admit it?

Being in a wheelchair, it's possible- DEPENDING on the strength/
skill of the person to handle their chair in differnt weather /or ground conditions...could they be afriad of the possible perpetrator to come after them?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Just because something is held as the popular view certainly doesn't mean that it's right or that the government should embrace it. During the civil rights era, the popular view in the South continued to be that African-Americans were less than whites, but the government stepped in. It took a long time for the government to take a pro-civil rights stance, but it did happen. The government's attitude towards homosexuals is no different.

In a perfect world, yes, but priority AAA1 is staying in power, especially so today. So it's not so much that government = the people, therefore government attitude reflects the peoples attitude, it's more that if they want to stay in power they need to accurately read that mood/attitude and exploit it/play up to it. That goes for both sides of politics. Witness the last US elections in relation to gay marriage. They accurately and successfuly read and exploited that, and if any monkey out there thinks it's because they 'believed' in it, I'm surprised you are smart enough to have turned on your computer, logged on and found this site. Seriously. If there were a stronger hot issue they would have played up to that one. It's all about gaining and holding power.