Abuse of Power and the Court of "Forced Forgiveness"
Read this in the news today, and was just astonished....
Salty burger lands McDonald's employee in jail
Highlights:
Bull, 20, said she accidentally spilled salt on hamburger meat and told her supervisor and a co-worker, who “tried to thump the salt off.”
On her break, she ate a burger made with the salty meat. “It didn’t make me sick,” Bull told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
But then Police Officer Wendell Adams got a burger made with the oversalted meat, and he returned a short time later and told the manager it made him sick.
Bull admitted spilling salt on the meat, and Adams took her outside and questioned her, she said.
City public information officer George Louth said Bull was charged because she served the burger “without regards to the well-being of anyone who might consume it.”
I have to say, this sounded like an honest mistake to me... and her supervisor should have been the one to tell her to toss the meat when she brought to his/her attention. Should this really go to the court? Would it be going to court had it not been some angry police officer who got the food? ... I mean - perhaps a refund and an apology... some coupons for free food, but really - jail???
Sex Offender Law having unintended consequence
Laws limiting where sex offenders can live are having the unintended consequence of increased homelessness--actually increasing the probabiliy of reoffense.
American sex laws: "unjust and ineffective"
An article in "The Economist" goes over a number of cases illustrating problems with American sex offense laws--including statutory rape laws in which the offender was not much older than the consensual "victim" and sodomy laws--which include (or included) any practice that was not reproductive sex. I realize that the fear that is generating the increasing strictness of these laws has to do primarily with child abductions, but I also wonder about how American attitudes about sex and sexuality play into this.
Sex Laws
I can surely see how our culture makes this topic a difficult one to talk about.
Everybody is afraid, and nobody trusts anyone else. The statistics don't warrant the treatment these offenders receive. In cases where it is warranted, I agree that it should be on a case by case basis as part of the sentence.
Fox in charge of the henhouse
I'm just amazed at how quickly the right to privacy is eroding in this country.
I actually wondered about this at some point but shrugged it off... how much of my medical history is floating around out there due to my actually having health care coverage?
Here's some higlights from the article - emphasis added:
Prescription data used to assess consumers
Health and life insurance companies have access to a powerful new tool for evaluating whether to cover individual consumers: a health "credit report" drawn from databases containing prescription drug records on more than 200 million Americans.
Ingenix, a Minnesota-based health information services company that had $1.3 billion in sales last year -- and Wisconsin-based rival Milliman -- say the drug profiles are an accurate, less expensive alternative to seeking physician records, which can take months and hundreds of dollars to obtain. They note that consumers authorize the data release and that the services can save insurance companies millions of dollars and benefit consumers anxious for a decision.
"As health care moves into the digital age, there are more and more companies holding vast amounts of patients' health information," said Joy Pritts, research professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "Most people don't even know these organizations exist. Unfortunately the federal health privacy rule does not cover many of them. . . . The lack of transparency with how all of this works is disturbing."
Ingenix and Milliman create the profiles by plumbing rich databases of prescription drug histories kept by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which help insurers process drug claims. Ingenix, for instance, has servers in the PBM data centers, updating the drug files as frequently as once a day, said John Stenson, senior vice president of consulting for Ingenix, which is a division of UnitedHealth Group. The corporation also owns UnitedHealthcare, the nation's second-largest insurer.
When an insurer makes an online query about an applicant, Ingenix or Milliman's servers scour the data and within minutes or less return reports to a central server at the company. The server aggregates the information going back as far as five years, including the drugs and dosages prescribed, dates filled and refilled, the therapeutic class and the name and address of the prescribing doctor.
Then comes the analysis.
Ingenix's MedPoint tool provides insurers a "pharmacy risk score," or a number that represents an "expected risk" for a group of people, such as 30- to 35-year-old women who have taken prescription drugs, Stenson said. Higher scores imply higher medical costs.
The companies receive data only on individuals who are in clients in PBMs' databases, generally excluding, say, people who pay for drugs in cash. The profiles cost insurers about $15 a search. IntelliScript gets about 1 million queries from insurers a year, largely individual health insurers.
For instance, if MedPoint produces a report that an individual has been on the highest dose of the cholesterol-reducing drug Zocor for 18 monts, the insurer "would be able to know that you have a very high, near-intractable cholesterol problem," Dick said, and could avoid a costly blood test.
Ingenix and Milliman officials stress that they provide data only with the patient's consent, as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a 1996 law that governs personal health records information. But HIPAA does not give the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to directly investigate or hold accountable entities, such as pharmacy benefit managers or companies such as Ingenix and Milliman, who are not covered by HIPAA.
A health privacy proposal pending in Congress would expand federal officials' ability to regulate such "downstream" organizations, audit their activities and impose civil fines. The bill also includes a prohibition on the sale of electronic medical records.
Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the products that Ingenix and Milliman are marketing represent the "commodification" of electronic medical records by third parties. "We've got to stop these practices before the marketplace is fully developed and patients lose all control over their medical information," he said.
In February, the Federal Trade Commission issued an order saying that MedPoint and IntelliScript are consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so the companies must notify insurers that consumers denied insurance on the basis of these reports have the right to request a copy of the report and that errors be corrected. The FTC's order followed a settlement of allegations that the companies violated the credit-reporting law by failing to provide such notice to insurers.
'Absolutely outrageous'
Bob Gellman, an independent privacy consultant in Washington, said the FTC's decision not to fine the companies sends "the message that it is okay to ignore the law." That, he said, "is absolutely outrageous."
Dick, who conceived the idea of linking the pharmacy databases for underwriting purposes a decade ago, said the pharmacy benefit managers understood the system's privacy implications. He said their attitude seemed one of, " 'Ooh, this is a 60 Minutes' story in the making.' Generally, they wanted to make it a super-secret database, restricted to underwriting."
But now, he said, "there's a huge case for it being opened up for all legitimate access," whether for a patient in an emergency room or for federal government purposes. The key, he said, is full transparency.
He said he has created a privacy tool that requires users to consent before specific data, such as prescription histories, can be released. To work, he said, the tool must be independent of all who hold the data.
"Otherwise," he said, "you have the fox in charge of the henhouse."
Child’s chalk doodle draws graffiti citation
NEW YORK - Chalk it up to New York City's crackdown on graffiti.
A 6-year-old child's chalk sketches on her family's stoop brought her parents a graffiti-removal notice that threatened a $300 fine.
First-grader Natalie Shea said her mom got a ticket for graffiti and it wasn't even graffiti.
Read the article here.
woman faces jail, fine for shouting profanities in her own home
Full story from the associated Press:
SCRANTON, Pa. - A Scranton woman who admitted shouted profanities at her overflowing toilet within earshot of a neighbor was cited for disorderly conduct, authorities said.
Dawn Herb could face up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” Herb told The Times-Tribune of Scranton. “The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop.”
Herb doesn’t recall exactly what she said, but she admitted letting more than a few choice words fly near an open bathroom window Thursday night.
Her next-door neighbor, a city police officer who was off-duty at the time, asked her to keep it down, police said. When she continued, the officer called police.
Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia, took issue with the citation.
“You can’t prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet,” she said.
Fun Quote for today
“Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”
-- Julius Caesar
Fun Quote for today
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall
History 101
Something humorous for this thread
Do you think Chuck Norris abuses his power?
Chuck Norris's power
ewwwwww, a Chuck Norris smoothie? Yuck...
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
ChuckfreakiNorris
HA! Oh my god... Chuck Norris.... Noooooo-oooooo!
A friend of mine showed me that website a few months ago. It's fun to play around with!
I did submit some requests of objects to blend but I haven't kept up with it.
Comments on animal rights activist issue...
Please allow me to step in and make a few comments on this issue, right at the top of the thread.
First let me say that I'm not generally in favor of "hate crime" laws. I don't know why it has to be against the law to feel something, or why how one felt when committing a crime should have anything to do with how severe the punishment is. This sentiment extends somewhat to the kind of laws that are being discussed here. I think we're dancing on a slippery slope to start guessing a party's convert intentions by certain behaviors. It doesn't matter how right we think we are in guessing those intentions. It's just dangerous ground to tread upon. And accusing someone of terrorism in this day in age is very serious business.
That said... gathering personal information on others and posting it on your website is highly irresponsible in this day and age, and it's probably true that only a very foolish person wouldn't know this. When said information is used for violent acts, in my view in must at least be treated as negligence. BUT... also... if it strains credulity to imagine that the defendants honestly didn't think violence would result from their actions, then a harsher penalty is definitely called for. In fact, conspiracy charges might not be out of the question. I can see a jury reasonably going for that charge. I agree, though, that no new penalties or laws are really required here. The laws that already existed suffice.
Now THAT said... all of what I've said is very easily said when I'm not a potential target. Knowing our dear friend Shell is a potential target does tend to make me (and I’m sure all of us) think that harsh laws are definitely in order. BUT... agendas and emotions for or against such laws aside... it seems to me that if there's any question at all that civil liberties might be threatened we must err on the side of leniency (as we do in the dictum, "innocent until proven guilty") and not go about punishing people for their feelings as well as their behaviors or obvious intents.
Anyway... that's my opinion. I hope it's stated clearly.
intent
It always feels like you're in trouble when "dad" steps in...So, sorry if this discussion is getting too inflammatory/out-of-line.
And I appreciate the support, GC, but whether a friend is a target or not should not affect the law. Its how the crime affects society as a whole is why there are subdivision of the same act. This is where we differ, and probably should be a separate thread.
Hate crimes doesn't have to do with "feelings" per say but the intent of the crime. Intent of the crime has a huge bearing on penalty already long established in our system for example murder...premeditated, self defense, crime of passion, etc. We still have to prove the intent in a court of law. We aren't just guessing at it.
Shelley
Re: intent
Well... that's kind of my point.
"Did Joe intend to kill Jack?"
"Yes."
"Ok, that's first degree murder. Did he hate him?"
"YES! I heard him say so myself!"
"Whoa! Then that's really really BAD first degree murder!"
It doesn't make any sense. As you point out, our legal system cares about intent, but it needn't go so far as to be concerned about the opinions of the perpetrator. I just think we're going down a dangerous path when we start looking into it that deeply. When are we going to put someone in jail for hating without killing? Never? Then I don't see why "hating" should be against the law in any case.
I don't really feel qualified to debate about laws on the basis of what they protect since I'm not of the opinion that laws protect anything. I don't tend to think they do much in the way of deterring behavior. So I tend to look at laws in terms of what they most definitely do accomplish, and that is in terms of how they punish people. A punishment that treats someone who's a threat to a group of people as if the person is a threat to the entire country... or the entire world... doesn't sound to me like a punishment that fits the crime.
You're right... whether a friend is involved or not shouldn't effect the law. But that doesn't mean it doesn't. My point was that laws are very personal things, not really the objective measures that I think many people like to believe they are. Laws often reflect all kinds of biases on the parts of the folks who make them. Which is just one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of human-made laws to begin with.
To be honest, I actually avoid popping in and commenting on threads because I don't want to upset the momentum of the discussion. (I think this is a very good one, by the way.) So forgive me if I've interfered. I merely wanted to share my opinion.not a feeling, a target
oh no, you didn't interfere. Sometimes you pop in because you're moderating but your opinion is always welcome
How about this conversation instead?
"Did Joe intend to kill Jack?"
"Yes." (and evidence is presented to a jury about intention to kill)
"Ok, that's first degree murder. Did you do it because he is Gay?"
"YES!" (and evidence is presented to the jury)
"Whoa! Then in addition to endangering this particular citizen you've intended to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. This damages and tear at the very fabric of free society. !"
The punishment does fit the crime. Its a greater crime.
Shelley
Re: not a feeling, a target
No, that version of the conversation was even less compelling, actually. What crime doesn't tear at the very fabric of free society? Isn't that why we call them "crimes"? And what kind of target is "free society"? How do we know when a person who has targeted another person is also or actually targeting the comparatively more amorphous "free society"? A concept like that is pretty easy to turn into a moving target... the kind that's able to show up just about anywhere. (I think in an email once someone called my website an affront to free society. I hope she wasn't from the FBI. 
)
In any case... again, I think the line of reasoning you present leads to dangerous places.
First of all, it doesn't logically follow that if a person kills someone because he's gay, to use your example, that the person intended to terrorize all gay people by the killing.
Second of all, even if the person did intend this, we have moved to an entirely different level in our treatment of the term "intent". Did the person act in the manner they did with the planned outcome of ending a person's life? This is one kind of question to address intent. What impact on others did the person intend for the murder to have? This is an entirely different question. In fact, a question like this speaks more to motive than intent when speaking in terms of the act of the crime. We don't arrest people for merely having a motive to commit a crime, do we? Of course, there's the crime of conspiracy, but prosecution of that crime isn't just based on a person's desire to break the law. Something has to happen to prove that an act contributed to a crime being committed or imminent. That's why so many conspiracy cases are only charged when a crime has actually been committed. We don't call a statement like, "Man, I really want to kill that guy" an instance of conspiracy to commit murder, do we?
Well... not yet we don't. But if we continue to punish not only peoples' acts but also their motives, what's really stopping that day from coming?
I stand by my previous assertion. Treating someone who's a threat to a particular group of people as if she or he is a threat to all of humanity qualifies as excessive punishment in my book. (This, by the way, is where "hate crimes" and "terrorist acts" intersect.) And anyway, such crimes are perfectly deplorable all by themselves without attempts to elevate the criminal to the status of a monster. (A human tendency that brings harm not only to the accused.)
I look forward to the day when statements like "we don't tolerate violence against gays," is replaced by "we don't tolerate violence" and everyone thinks it would be mad to believe the latter statement excludes gays or anyone else. "Hate crime" designations do not hasten such a day, in my opinion. Nor do special punishments for so-called "terrorist acts".
But recall... I question the efficacy of any law, so... take that however you will.
Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
Also, based on your opinion above, what are your thoughts on the Matthew Shephard Act?
President Bush has to decide to either sign or veto the bill. What is your opinion on what the president should do?
Here's an article on the Matthew Shephard Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Law_Enforcement_Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act_of_2007
Here's an article on Matthew Shephard.
Threat
GC, re: "We don't call a statement like 'Man I really want to kill that guy' an instance of conspiracy to commit murder, do we?"
What are your thoughts about in the prospect of a threat to kill the president? Directly or indirectly, isn't that enough to send the person to jail?
A genuine question, by the way... not disagreeing.
Re: Threat
I guess it depends upon the circumstance. I mean, if I call a school and make a threat that's a punishable offence. Not everything I might say is protected by the First Amendment.
re: threat
I see. True threats, not protected speech.
Take a step back
Ok, let's take a step back here and see if we agree on some basic assumptions. Otherwise, the debate is mute.
Do you or do you not agree that a heavier penalty will deter a specific crime? for example, getting your hands cut off for stealing vs a monetary fine.
Shelley
Re: Take a stop back
Re: why
Based on... my opinion?
I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. Are you asking for my opinion on the matter? Because I think I did state somewhere that I don't tend to think that laws deter crime. Not in any meaningful sense, anyway.
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be dense. I just don't know what you're asking.
step back further
I forgot you said that about feel laws in general don't deter crime. We need to step back even further.
What are you basing your opinion on? Have you lived in a society or know of a society where laws don't exist and criminal activity was minimal? Well I guess if its not a crime, there can be no criminal activity but acts that we we call criminal activity.
along those same lines...do laws serve a purpose to a community/society in your opinion.
Shelley
Re: step back further
Well, if I don't think that laws deter crime then I probably think I NOW live in a society where there is low crime in spite of laws. The neighborhood I live in, for example. No robberies, muggings, or murders in the four years I've lived here. And I'm pretty certain if I went door-to-door and asked each household why this was so, none of them would say, "Well, I've wanted to kill people in this neighborhood but, you know, it's against the law."
Based upon my careful studies of history I have no reason to believe that, before written laws came into being, human societies were mired in chaos. So I'd say, yes, I have known of many societies that functioned perfectly well without written, "immutable" laws. Well, at least they ran as well as they do now, and in some cases I think the argument could be made that they ran better "back in the day".
The main purposes I see in modern laws are to protect the "privileged" from the "unprivileged" and, more importantly, from the "underprivileged". Laws also create a subculture of surveillance, sanction, and incarceration. And I suppose these functions of the law have their uses for someone, but not particularly for me.
history and laws plus children
I will get back to you on your neighborhood crime statements and your suggested purpose of modern law at another time. I'm going to focus on the laws in history comment.
First, are we talking written laws or laws? Second, please name the society from your careful studies of history that did not have laws (written or unwritten).
Third, does your household have rules/laws for your children? Or if you do not have children in your household, is it wise to raise children without consistant punishment for undesirable behavior?
Shelley
Re: history of laws plus children
I draw distinctions between "rules" and "customs" and "written laws". This is why I was careful to say "written laws".
As for societies to be named... just pick any pre-literate society you know. Odds are it didn’t (or doesn't) function under anything that resembles the written, institutionalized laws we have today. Customs and taboos, sometimes quite harsh ones, perhaps. (Actually, very likely.) But it isn’t the same thing. The differences make a difference.
Anarchy means "self rule", not "no rule". Self-rule doesn't require the kinds of "laws" we've been discussing but various rules do emerge in anarchic societies. That, however, is an entirely different thing compared to the institutionalized codes I'm referring to.
If you don't recognize these distinctions yourself, that's your prerogative and I certainly respect your opinion. But just understand that I approach the issues from a different direction entirely.
For example... I shudder to compare criminal or even civil laws to the rules of a household. Because in my thinking the governments that create laws ought not be seen as filling a parental role. Nor should a parental role be seen as governing. To suggest that support of parental rules leads logically to support of government laws is a bit like suggesting support of a child helping with housework is support of child labor in factories. The reasoning just isn't sound, in my view.
please explain
I may be dense, but explain to me how written laws are different from "understood" laws of prehistoric society and different from rules or customs or taboos.
we'll get back to the comparison/differences of governing a people and governing a family at at later time.
Shelley
rules for children
I can chime in on this one in regard to child-rearing because I have thought that that is probably the area in my life where I've been the most anarchic. There have been some rules like--displays of anger are allowed but not hitting. But no rules about what can/can't be eaten, bedtimes, what to wear, how to keep his room, etc. As far as punishments, I did try time outs briefly but my son seemed to react in a way that had the opposite effect of what the time out was supposed to do (chill things out). He seemed to feel an intense sense of being a wrong doer. So I cut that out and really the "punishment" he got most was being told that that behavior was wrong, or unacceptable, or unsafe...so the punishment was knowing that I didn't like what he was doing, or I didn't want him to do something.
Of course I'm prejudiced, but I find him to be a very thoughtful and moral person.
teacher rules/laws?
Jaz,
I know you're a teacher but I don't know what age you teach. If its high school or younger, how do control disruption in the classroom? How does this compare to your parenting philosophy?
Shelley
teacher rules/laws
shell,
I teach college so disruption usually isn't a problem. I think if I was in that situation of teaching younger ages it would be more difficult than parenting because I would be dealing with a whole group who had not all been socialized with the same outlook. Maybe what both have in common though is that as both parent and teacher I do acknowledge that I am the "authority"--I'm the one in power, though also in both situations I think part of my responsibility would be to give a child more and more of the ability to take that authority over themselves. This is a bit of tangent but I often think that parents often don't believe in their own authority with two general results: they need to bolster their weak feeling of authority by trying to control their children's behavior through having a rule for every contingency and when the rules are broken seem to feel intensely angry and threatened. Or they need to plead every case with the child and can't maintain the rule without the child agreeing with them, in a sense giving them permission to have authority. So that probably clarifies that I'm not completely anarchic--I just have tried to keep the authority on the shelf as much as is possible and put it away more and more as my son has grown up. It's getting pretty dusty now.
In my own teaching--one way in which I have to deal with "rules" that I don't like is in the grading process, which is about everyone meeting a certain standard and then being assessed (which the students anway often see as rewards/punishments)--I find this really gets in the way of learning. I tried when I first started teaching to do things like eliminate grading in the early part of the year and instead just write assessments of things students needed work on. But I constantly got asked by the students to tell them what the grade would be if I were grading them. So really I think eliminating grading would require a systemic change across school systems.
assessing knowledge
We are definately splintering off on this conversation, so sorry about confusing the flow of the thread, but I am curious, without a grading system or pass/fail type test. How would you assess the skill/knowledge of say a medical student or surgeon before they are turned loose on the public? in other words their license to practice medicine. I suppose the same idea would be driver's license as well.
Shelley
assessing
Parent/friend
jaz, I have to agree with you on your punishment styles. I don't have kids myself but I've always known how I would discipline my child because of the way my parents disciplined me and my sisters.
I know I would have a better relationship with my parents had they been emotionally there instead or including strict punishment. Yelling and intimidating, then "the" punishment. However, I would ground my child for example, but not without an understanding of the emotional aspects involved. And letting your child learn from his/her own mistakes instead of always trying to prevent the mistake from ever occurring helps the child among other things, build confidence in themselves.
I think it's VERY important for a parent to be act like a parent to their child, but also as a friend. At 23 years old, I have a very limited emotional relationship with my parents. It's not because I don't want to or never wanted to, but the emotional balance was never there and opening up to them was something that I felt uncomfortable doing even to this day. However, I can easily sympathize with friends.
I love my parents. But I know that I can learn from their discipline styles by knowing what to do and what not to do. Including what is more important on the type of act the child made and the punishment needed.
Man, I really want to kill that guy
A few examples of this kind of protected free speech:
In Hess v. Indiana the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard saying "we'll take the fucking street later" was overturned because the Court concluded that the unlawful action advocated was not imminent but rather at some indefinite future time.
The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement by NAACP members that "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware.
I'm curious if anyone is surprised by this.
Different crimes
Sorry if I'm intruding as well...
The difference I think between yours (Shelley) and GC's opinion is the domestically of it. Domestic violence/crimes happens when one person believes they can control another person to establish power through fear and intimidation. I think the motive such as the mentality to endanger an individual (vs a "hate crime") is irrelevant in the prosecution of the suspect. Ones mentality to endanger an individual such as murder, in my opinion, is a crime that should be unbiased as far as motive. It is still murder.
Such hate crimes against sexuality or even race, etc, I agree, the motive/feelings behind the crime itself is valuable in a court of law because it does represent a hate crime against a community.
On another note, there are exceptions like self-defense and if the suspect in question is mentally insane vs acting "in the heat of the moment". Punishment such as the death penalty vs life in prison vs 20 years in prison (for example) is based on the motive and intentions of suspect. But on the flip side, murder is murder and is debatable to no end. Thus why I think there are different forms of punishment.
I think as far as the motive behind a domestic crime is only relevant in finding the suspect involved in the crime as a means to eliminate suspects. For example, a couple breaking up, a spouse cheating, a jealous other, etc would aide in finding the suspect. Though science should definitely be involved as to eliminate sending an innocent person to jail.
Then you have murder crimes such as extreme postpartum depression. An emotionally disturbing crime happened here in Houston where the mother drowned her children. That subject itself is argumentative and I'm not going to post my feelings on the matter. But because the punishment she deserves is debatable, she was found to be insane because of the disease, she was hospitalized for her actions instead of going to prison. But only difference I can see would be that she is receiving help while incarcerated rather than just sitting in a cell for the rest of her life.
motive
Man! the whole gangs' here! This is great,not an intrusion.
So, I see domestic crime as an example of *not* a hate crime but you're right in establishing motive will lead you to suspects. More importantly, it will lead you to type of punishment once convicted. Motive is *so* important in law.
sounds like a pretty tough case in Houston. Since we was found insane, she will have a different punishment. Like possibly, once the doctors deem her sane she may be free to go? very different than life in prison, if not the death penalty (this was Texas, right?)
Shelley
insanity defense
Wanted to interject a point here about the insanity defense because I think there's a general misperception that those found innocent by reason of insanity and placed in mental institutions are going to be released quickly. (I'm not saying that you said this shell, just wanted to make this point.) In fact I think that people who are placed in mental institutions often are there for the rest of their lives because an illness that causes such violent behavior is difficult to treat.
The case that kat cited in Texas--I don't know if that would be somewhat different. I guess it would somewhat depend on whether what caused her actions were related to life long problems or not.
Not guilty by reason of insanity...
Regarding the Houston woman that drowned her children--I was hesitant to post this at first but I thought this was... interesting after reading up on the development of her case. The woman in question, her name is Andrea Yates. That name may or may not turn on any lightbulbs but I do remember it being broadcast internationally.
From Wikipedia:
"Although the defense's expert testimony agreed that Andrea Yates was psychotic, Texas law requires that, in order to successfully assert the insanity defense, the defendant must prove that he or she could not discern right from wrong at the time of the crime. In March 2002, a jury rejected the insanity defense and found Yates guilty. Although the prosecution had sought the dealth penalty, the jury refused that option. The trial court sentenced Yates to life inprisonment with eligibility for parole in 40 years.
On January 6 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, because California psyciatrist and prosecution witness Dr. Park Dietz admitted he had given materially false testimony during the trial. Dietz stated that shortly before the killings, an episode of Law & Order had aired featuring a woman who drowned her children and was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity. It was later discovered that no such episode existed; the appellate court held that the jury may have been influenced by his false testimony and that thus a new trial would be necessary. (Later, in 2004, Law & Order did air the episode "Magnificant" based in part on Yates' case.)
On January 9, Yates again entered pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. On February 1, 2006, she was granted release on bail on the condition that she be admitted to a mental health treatment facility.
On July 26, 2006 after three days of deliberations, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity, as defined by the state of Texas. She has since been committed to the State Hospital."
Regarding the separation of emotion and punishing it separately from the action...
"Many theories could explain Andrea's conviction. Of course, the primary theory would speculate that the jury was so horrified by Andrea's acts that any psychiatric evidence offered on her behalf paled in comparison. Yet, the continuing controversy and debate over Andrea's conviction suggest that there may be other, more complex, explanations."
This is where I can't draw a line. I just think that human emotion upon jurors can and have flawed the (already corrupt) legal system. But my line of reasoning is not based on this case but rather, in general.
Punishment
Hmm... I haven't researched in depth what will happen to her after enough proper clinical treatment. But I imagine she wouldn't be let go. Rather, if she ever does get diagnosed as sane... she'd get sent to prison. She killed 4 or 5 (all) of her children. Something to that magnitude is debatable whether someone could actually recover from that experience alone.
She may need some psycholigical treatment just to live with the guilt.
It's a very sad story. I feel sorry for what happened, naturally.
But the threat she may cause to society and the threat society may cause to her could potentially play a factor in her overall punishment if and when she "recovers".
And yes, Houston Texas.
hate crime
definition
I think its important that the law specifically defines a hate crime as the following
The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals. ..
But I don't mean to confuse the subject. The discussion we were having about the AEPA is not defined as a hate crime. I was just using hate crime vs crime as an example of why there are different laws for the same act.
Shelley
hate crime
my thoughts
Jaz,
I agree with you one of the major values of instituting hate crime laws may be the denunciatory or public awareness purpose. And likely for the more violent, repeat offenders, the severity of punishment may be less critical to deterrence than boosting the certainty of punishment…..which may be boosted by the denunciatory/educational purpose and the public’s awareness. Who really knows? The issue of is very complex and evidence bearing on its effectiveness is far from complete. So any extreme position will likely be far from the truth.
I would tend to believe, that the possible deterrent effect of hate crime laws will rest in to those more casual offenders. But, in my opinion, this is a good place for the battlefield in hopes that these offenders do not grow into the hardcore offenders.
And just as a side note I think its important that we stick to defining hate crime as a biased motive not an emotion.
Shelley
Re: biased motive
I can go along with that.
But I will note they don't call it "biased crime" or even "prejudiced crime". "Hate" is the word they use and it is an emotion. And I don't think that word is used by accident. It makes one wonder what was intended by picking this label. What affect was the label intended to have upon those who heard it? And is not that affect still intended?
Still... as a point of law I do concede that your definition of the term is more suitable. I assure you that my own use of the terms "feelings" and "emotions" were not rhetorical. The term in question does happen to be most evocatively named.definitions
And I wouldn't be surprised if the use of "hate" is politically motivated as well as a catch phrase to grab the American public (we *do* like sound bites!)
However, the law, like most laws, is specifically defined and that which judgement is based
Shelley
On the undue influence of marketing
This was an actual ad!
~ The Soda Pop Board of America