This particular case received what press it did because the lesbian killer then chopped up her dead victim with a chainsaw in a vain attempt to hide the evidence. Both women were also deaf, which raised the media interest level. I am linking to several stories because I will want to find an active link the next time some politically correct liberal says we need a hate crimes law. Punish murders because they are murderers, not because of their motivation. I’ve quoted from several of the stories to give you a summary.
Wright is black, deaf and a lesbian. Her victim, Darlene VanderGiesen, was white, deaf and heterosexual.Prosecutors said that Wright was jealous of the friendship VanderGiesen had with Wright’s former lover and that it turned to rage that drove Wright to kidnap VanderGiesen, kill her, burn the body and cut it apart with a chain saw.
The jury had to decide unanimously that Wright’s mind was depraved at the time of the crime before even considering whether death is appropriate. After about eight hours of deliberation, jurors found that Wright had the depravity of mind, but they decided that she should not be executed for it.
It means Wright will spend the rest of her life at the women's prison in Pierre or the penitentiary in Sioux Falls.
Category: Domestic Politics , Category: General
In response to the blog: The majority of hate crimes are not violent but vandlism and intimidation. And frankly, the concept of hate crimes frightens me as much as any other case of criminal activity for ambiguous reasons: serial crimes, petty theif...
You say to "punish murderers because they are murderers" but a person who committs a hate crime hurts or kills for the sole or majority reason of the victims identity. Doesn't that mean that they would be willing to do it again? Doesn't that mean that anyone like that victim is a potential victim? Don't women fear serial rapists because it means they could be hurt because they are women? Movitation plays a large part in what people do. The story you gave above has an obvious motivation that would not make a white, male, or striaght person stand back and think "Would she have hurted me if I were there?"
To Norris: Any person who would hurt another person is no bother in Christ to me. -_-
Roger,
Yes, the Senate is going to vote on it today. Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R, OR) added it as an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization bill. I called my senators today to express my concern and to ask them to vote against it. One of their aids (the Democrat) said that the Senator was in favor of it (why am I not surprised?), but could not answer me when I asked What is wrong with simply enforcing current laws against anyone who commits a crime? The other (Republican) Senator's aide did not know her boss's position (so I'm assuming this means he is undecided), but took down my information.
Katherine,
I'm not sure I agree with your claim that the majority of hate crimes are not violent but vandlism and intimidation, especially since the concept of a hate crime requires the authorities to be mind readers, but for the sake of argument let's say you are right. We have current laws against both vandalism and intimidation so we should simply enforce these.
You ask if the criminals would be willing to do it again? Possibly, even probably if the criminal was a habitual criminal. How is this any different than any other criminal? Many bank robbers are repeat offenders… This does not mean we need a new law against people who think greedy thoughts. We simply need to enforce existing laws against robbery.
We may be in agreement given your first statement; I'm not sure if you support hate crime legislation or not. I posted to simply show media bias and so I could find this case the next time an acquaintance tries to argue in favor of a hate crimes law. While I have many liberal friends (I work at a university), I rarely come across anyone outside of government who favors these types of thought policing laws.
Hvae you heard about the H.R. 1592, the recent "hate-crimes" bill which passed the U.S. House?
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004544.cfm
From the article: "Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the most disturbing aspect of the hate-crimes bill is that it paves the way for the prosecution of people who hold a biblical view of homosexuality."
Fortunately Bush will veto this one if it gets to his desk, but I'm disgusted that such a bill would even make it that far.