STORY: Shepard Autopsy Among Missing Records in Wyo.

http://www.kgwn.tv/


10 Years Later...No Hate Crime Bill In Wyoming

Ten years ago an openly gay University of Wyoming student was brutally beaten and left for dead. Five days later, Matthew Shepard died from his injuries.

Shepard's death made national headlines and pushed awareness for stricter penalties for hate crimes based on sexual orientation. However, Wyoming does not have any hate crime laws.

Today many are remembering the life of Matthew Shepard but many wonder when Wyoming will pass laws against hate crimes.

His murder led to a national outcry for tougher laws. However, a decade later, Wyoming is one of nineteen states that does not address hate crimes based on sexual orientation...

NewsChannel Five talked to several Wyoming residents about their thoughts about the progress of laws against hate crimes.

One resident, David Kinder felt that nothing has been done, "I just think in 10 years Wyoming should be able to do something. So, I'm pretty disgusted by it. I think every state should have a hate crime law."

Many residents across the state, including Edward Winslow, wonder how a crime of this magnitude would not force law makers to enact any hate crime laws, "I feel that they really need to do something about hate crime law. I am not sure what's going on with legislature. They don't want to move with it. I think they need to pass something in the future on that."

Following the death of her son, Judy Shepard, made it her mission to bring awareness about diversity by starting the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Judy Shepard appeared on CBS The Early Show Monday, to talk about Matthew's life and her continuous fight for gay rights, "Wyoming had the perfect the opportunity to actually set the tone, set the example, just to be what every state should have been had that happened in their state, and they didn't take advantage of it."

Following Matthew Shepard's death, Wyoming Legislature introduced a bill defining certain attacks motivated by victim identity as hate crimes but failed to pass.

Good it's nice to see some state governments still have common sense. Why should Shepard's murderers receive any harsher of a sentence than say a husband who kills his wife by beating the shit out of her or a parent that kills their child by beating the shit out of them. We already have laws that cover this. Murder is not legal in any state. There is no logical reason why one innocent murder victim should receive more special treatment and respect than another innocent murder victim. When you start convicting people based on the motive of the crime rather than the crime itself you are taking the Orwellian on ramp to 1984 thought crime.

We need separate laws so when the small backwards towns do nothing after a hate crime, then state or federal can step in and prosecute. In those rural towns it's rare that someone is prosecuted for a hate crime against gays/lesbians, a different race or religion, and hate crimes against women.

The feds can already step in and prosecute "hate crimes" whenever they want. That's how civil rights violations were handled in the Deep South. There is no reason whatsoever to parse state law to give one form of the very same crime precedence over another.

I see your point, V, but have been following a case out in New Jersey in which a guy (an illegal immigrant) raped, beat and choked to death a 9 year old boy with premeditation. There's not much difference between that and a "crime of hate" as it is defined by those who support such legislation. Curiously, "child haters" are not included in this legislation, which is of course driven by activism. In my book, premeditated hate murder is premeditated hate murder, no matter the orientation of the victim. The feds can always swoop in and decide what is right to prosecute, if the state refuses in some wrongheaded way, anyway.

That's also true, in my book, anyone who harms a child needs fucking eviscerated. I just think that specifically outlining hate crimes might force more tolerance on those who are ignorant of it...or at least work as a deterrent.

*faints*

The Supreme Court ruled (in a unanimous decision written by Bill Rehnquist of all people) that considering hate as a motive for the purposes of sentence enhancement was Constitutional. Wisconsin v. Mitchell.

While I agree that violent hate crimes are abhorrent, the problem with hate crimes legislation is twofold: First, States need to be careful with the language and implementation of such legislation in order not to deprive defendants of the same Fourteenth Amendment rights such laws were meant to protect.

More important, however, is the need to ensure that so-called hate-crimes laws don't go from sentence-enhancement (where the conduct is already a crime, like assault) to criminalizing hate speech per se, as they have in other countries. That would be just as bad as the DOJ's current assault on Porn.

The problem with 'hate' crime charges is that they feel like separate laws for a 'separate' group of people.And they're a one-way street. When a bunch of coons do something as horrendous as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

to a couple of white people, there is noone standing up a saying 'hate crime'. How was that now hateful?

Actually, the case cited above involved a group of Blacks who beat a White Teen nearly to death after watching Mississippi Burning.

I still see no reason why one victim should be more special than another. I don't want the justice system to go the route of "person A killed person B because person A didn't like the color of person B's skin, off with person A's head, person C however killed person D because person C didn't like the color of person D's shirt, meh whatever." You can take whether or not it is premeditated as a factor but I don't think you should take why it was premeditated as a factor.

^^^ Then by that rationale, someone who plotted and planned a double murder should receive the same penalty as someone who walked in on his wife fucking a guy and immediately shot and killed them both. That doesn't make sense to me...life isn't that black and white (no tritone joke implied).

No. What Perv's saying (I think) is that premeditation is a legitimate factor, but the reason behind said premeditation is not.

I think there's a difference between ruling on motive and actually creating a set of specific laws for a certain group of criminals and victims (Read:white males versus everybody else). And as I said before , you will never see a situation where a couple of nigs commit horrific. barbaric crimes like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

against white victims and have it treated as a hate crime. Justice should be blind. And look how bad it's gotten up here in Canada with this bullshit.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

does it matter that a hate crime has implications beyond the single victim? that it's not only one single person being killed, but an attempt to terrorize an entire group of people? the guys who murdered matthew shepard didn't kill "matthew shepard", they killed a faggot. maybe it's just me, but that's why it's different.