Was Matthew Shepard's killing just a random drug murder?

[Tareeq]

If so, should we pass a law banning crystal meth?

But that's not the end of Mr. O'Connor's involvement in this story. In defending himself from charges of homophobia Mr. McKinney says, noxiously, "I have gay friends," which gives the documentary a chance for a bravura transition.

"One of McKinney's gay friends may have been Matthew Shepard," Ms. Vargas says in voice-over.

What? They knew each other?

Mr. McKinney denies it to Ms. Vargas, but "20/20" then produces several interviews with people who had seen the men together. And then a bomb is dropped.

Mr. O'Connor, ever the mixer here, volunteers that Mr. McKinney didn't hate gays because "I know of an instance where he had a three-way - two guys and one girl at a party, an all-nighter." After confirming that Mr. McKinney had had sex with the man of the trio, Ms. Vargas asks Mr. O'Connor how he knows about such an intimate experience.

"Because he did it with me," the limo driver says.

Now what does this prove? That Mr. McKinney was bisexual, as his girlfriend goes on to confirm? (Mr. McKinney denies that he has ever had sex with a man.) Does that mean he wasn't homophobic? And as for the news about Mr. Shepard - so what if he did meth or had H.I.V.?

Did anyone see this? Does anyone watch television on Friday night?

[Fireball]

AFAIK, that's all true. There was more to Shepherd's murder than homophobia, and likely it was a robbery for drugs or for drug money that was the principle agitator for the crime.

[Grundbegriff]

Did anyone see this? Does anyone watch television on Friday night?

Here's a synopsis with brief commentary, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's linkfest.

[The Preacher]

Ironic that a national surge in hate crime legislation is partially based on a drug related murder. Of course, that's why hate crime modifiers are so fundamentally assinine, imo.

[geezer]

Ironic that a national surge in hate crime legislation is partially based on a drug related murder. Of course, that's why hate crime modifiers are so fundamentally assinine, imo.

Agreed - they always seemed to me like a penalty for certain types of thought.

[Eel Snave]

What's wrong with prosecution for thoughtcrime?

[Mr. Fed]

If you are going to take a principled stance against "thoughtcrime" --- as opposed to stock anti-PC stance against it -- you'll need to get rid of centuries of common law differentiating among crimes based on motive, not to mention just about all state and federal criminal statutes dealing with motive or specific intent (which would include most murder and assault laws and almost all fraud and other white-collar-crime laws).

[The Preacher]

I'm not sure if you were addressing me, Eel, or both. Assuming it was me, I certainly see the value in getting to a certain level of motive, i.e. intent, self-defense, etc. What I don't understand is if some guy wants to kill my wife because she's a redhead, or nice, or boodilicious why he should get a less harsh sentence than a guy who wants to kill a different woman because she's a lesbian. Provided that both had the same level of intent and self-defense factor (or however you put that in legalese), the sick bastard's reasoning beyond that should be immaterial.

Or at least I haven't heard a convincing counterargument.

[Mr. Fed]

And what I'm suggesting is that I haven't heard a convincing argument distinguishing society's judgments that inform traditional intent/motive inquiries from society's judgments that inform hate crimes laws. We've always made judgments that some motives and intents are more dangerous or worthy of condemnation than others. Singling out hate crimes is reductio ad Limbuagh.

[The Preacher]

Now wait a second, you're telling me that there you don't believe there is a legal difference between the differentiation between "accident", "heat of the moment" and "preplanned murder" and the differentiation between "killed her because she was a redhead" and "killed her because she was a lesbian"? Are you joshing with me?

[Mr. Fed]

Now wait a second, you're telling me that you don't see a difference between the differentiation between "accident", "heat of the moment" and "preplanned murder" and the differentiation between "killed her because she was a redhead" and "killed her because she was a lesbian"? Are you joshing with me?

You're drawing it too narrowly. The law of murder, to name just a single crime, has long involved many more inquiries than whether the killing was accidental, premeditated, or intentional. Consider the aggravating factors for death penalty purposes that have built up over the past two centuries, not to mention the common law ones (treating poisoning as presumptively different than stabbing, for instance).

Plus, what is the principled difference between somebody who acts with malice in killing a person and someone who kills out of a sudden rage without malice? The person is equally dead. It would be hard to argue that the hothead will not get angry again, just as it is hard to argue that the calculated killer will not calculate again. But society makes a moral judgment that some states of mind are more blameworthy than others. That IS a principled difference. But to pretend that it doesn't involve a value judgment is misleading.

And it isn't limited to murder and assault. Break into somebody's house, and your punishment will depend on whether or not you had the intent to take things therein -- even if you are stopped before taking such things. Lie to somebody to get money, and there will be an inquiry into whether or not you intended to defraud. And the law of conspiracy, attempt, and aiding and abetting are all rife with inquiries into state of mind and intent.

[Eel Snave]

And the reason it bothers me is, what if I'm beaten up or killed? Here's the problem: The penalty for my attacker would be different if I was gay or a minority. It's still discrimination. What if they beat me up because I was a straight white male? They wouldn't classify that as a hate crime. Why? I'm not a minority. That's the problem.

[Mr. Fed]

And the reason it bothers me is, what if I'm beaten up or killed? Here's the problem: The penalty for my attacker would be different if I was gay or a minority. It's still discrimination. What if they beat me up because I was a straight white male? They wouldn't classify that as a hate crime. Why? I'm not a minority. That's the problem.

That's simply wrong. Hate crimes laws deal with victim selection based on race, ethnicity, etc. They don't just say "minority status." They apply equally to crimes against whites selected because they were whites. They apply equally to crimes against straights selected because they were straights. (Assuming the law in question covers sexual preference; many do not). In fact, the first hate crimes law to reach the Supreme Court involved a white victim beaten by black kids.

[Eel Snave]

I dunno. I'm just worried about misinterpretations by overzealous DAs. Knaa'mean?

[Tareeq]

I dunno. I'm just worried about misinterpretations by overzealous DAs. Knaa'mean?

Fortunately we have defense attorneys, judges and jurors in an adversarial system to counteract that. I know of no laws (university codes don't count) that punish thought alone. Hate crime laws invariably act as sentence enhancements for a particularly contemptible motive, in the context of behavior that is already criminal. As the preceding lawyer pointed out, in the English system we've always considered the defendant's reasons for committing crimes in the context of assigning punishment.

You'd have to go back to the Code of Hammurabi to find a system in which a criminal's motive plays no part in deciding the penalty.