Three Arrested In Philly Gay Bashing

Jim Burroway

September 24th, 2014

Philip R. Williams, Kathryn G. Knott, Kevin J. Harrigan.

Philip R. Williams, Kathryn G. Knott, Kevin J. Harrigan.

Three Philadelphia suspects turned themselves in after the Twitterverse solved a gay-bashing hate crime last week. Kevin Harrigan, 26, Philip Williams, 24, and Katherine Knott, 24, turned themselves in this morning after arrest warrants were issued yesterday. Knott, it turns out, is the daughter of a Chalfont, Bucks County Police Chief Karl Knott. News reports — and these captures from her Twitter feed — suggests she’s a real class act. Her employer at Abington Health’s Lansdale Hospital, where she worked as an emergency room tech, announced that she was suspended for allegedly violating a patients confidentiality by posting an X-ray on her Twitter account. Lawyers for the three however assert their innocence, claiming that it was one of the victims who threw the first punch.

The three face charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, conspiracy and reckless endangerment. The victims, a 28-year-old man and a 27-year-old man whose names have not been released, were approached by what was described as “a visibly intoxicated” group of about a dozen people who, according to police, made disparaging remarks about their sexual orientation. One of the men suffered serious facial injuries, with an orbital fracture and his jaw wired shut. The rest of the group have not been charged in connection with the assault, and police say that the reason for that “will come out in court.” One of those who weren’t charged, Fran McGlinn, was resigned from his job as assistant basketball coach at Archbishop Wood High School.

None of the suspects will be charged with a hate crime because Pennsylvania’s hate crime law does not include sexual orientation. At a news conference in Harrisburg yesterday, several Democratic state lawmakers urged the passage of proposed legislation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the state’s hate crimes statute. One of those lawmakers, Allegheny County Sen. Jim Ferlo, took that opportunity to come out in grand fashion: “I’m gay. Get over it. I love it. It’s a great life.”

enough already

September 25th, 2014

Their bails have been set at obscenely low levels – 75K for the male bashers and only 50K for the woman.

They’re going to walk. It’s perfectly OK for them to have done what they did. Those gay men were flaunting their sexuality and these good Christians were simply following the rules of the one and only true religion.

I’m so filled by disgust, it’s hard to find the words to express it.

Customartist

September 25th, 2014

Take a good look at these sad faces. These are the products of their even more pathetic Parents, whose faces SHOULD BE the faces posted as the origin of the mindset that says beating others to the point of unconscusness simply cause you deem them as inferior is AOK in the White Christian doctrine.

I hope their parents are proud!

Paul Douglas

September 25th, 2014

Good catholick upbringing, I guess.

jerry

September 25th, 2014

When these three leave the planet nothing of value will be lost.

Mark F.

September 25th, 2014

Why do they “need” to be charged with a hate crime? They all are already being charged with a serious crime.

enough already

September 25th, 2014

Mark, I’m so glad you asked that. The hate crime laws make it possible to get ‘reluctant’ prosecutors to do their jobs. To overcome local police ‘good old boy’ arrangements.
To protect us against the Christian driven hatred which runs rampant against us.

Lord_Byron

September 25th, 2014

I thought PA had included sexual orientation in things covered by hate crimes, but then it was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. Either way sexual orientation isn’t covered and I am hoping that they are able to re-add it to what is covered by hate crimes. I’ve heard the feds may step in and charge them under the Matthew Shephard hate crime law.

Lucrece

September 25th, 2014

Why no federal hate crime charges?

Patrick

September 26th, 2014

Mark F., if they had attacked these men because they were Christian, and for no other reason, it would be seen as a hate crime. The crime’s intent is to harm individuals because of the group they belong to. It impacts all people of that group, unlike general robberies or muggings, which are not group specific.

So, the real question is why would it be a hate crime if they were attacked for being Christian but not a hate crime if they were attacked for being gay? Why should Christians receive such preferential treatment? Why do Christians receive special rights compared to other groups in society?

eric

September 26th, 2014

Patrick, the real question is why is it necessary to treat some assaults differently than others under the law where the same damage is done during the assault?

If the punishment under PA law for this attack is not sufficient, shouldn’t it be increased for all assaults of a similar severity rather than create a special punishment scheme based on the motivation of an attack?

eric

September 26th, 2014

Lucrece, generally the feds wait until the state finishes its case before they proceed with further charges. If the USAG’s office is satisfied that the perpetrators have been sufficiently punished, they don’t bother.

Timothy Kincaid

September 26th, 2014

I’m going to fall somewhere between eric and Mark and Patrick.

I to am not a fan of hate crime enhancements. I’m familiar with the arguments in favor, but hate crime enhancements criminalize thoughts, beliefs, and words and I’m not a fan of going down that road.

I would prefer that hate crimes be tracked (just like other crimes are tracked), but that there not be extra sentence doled out based on whether one screamed gay slurs or not.

On the other hand, it also makes no sense to have hate crime enhancements for some victims and not for others. And it especially makes no sense for one of the (proportionally) largest victim classes to be excluded while relative rare victim classes are included.

And as it appears that “real or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry” DO have enhancements for hate crimes and orientation does not, this would seem to be an invitation to bash gay people.

enough already

September 26th, 2014

Eric,
The function of hate crime laws is to ensure justice for groups of people from whom it has traditionally been withheld.
The whole point of gay-bashing is to have a chilling effect on gay men being ‘out’.
You might want to take a look at the way Negroes were treated in the post WWII era in the US to gain a better understanding of why it’s not enough to punish these sorts of crimes simply as the individual crimes.
Without a concerted effort on the part of society to say: This is a crime driven by hatred, it will not be tolerated in our midst, there’s no way to ever stop it.
Whether it’s against us queers, those Christian sects which are subject to abuse (mostly from other Christians, of course, but then most hate crime in this country is driven by a small group of ultra-far-right Christians) or skin color.
Frankly, I consider the ease with which Republican Christian politicians are forgiven for committing adultery to be a hate crime against the sanctity of marriage…

Ben in oakland

September 26th, 2014

I have to disagree with this, Timothy.

Opinions and biases are really just a part of the motive for any crime. And thus, they’re part of every criminal court case. They affect sentencing. We ask, who should serve more time, the person who wanted to kill someone, or the person who accidentally killed someone? Like it or not, we already make decisions based on opinions and bias.

What you’re saying is the with hate crimes, we’ve now made holding certain opinions a crime. I don’t think so. It’s no crime to have an opinion, now matter how vile. If it were, Lively, Barbera, and their whole vile species would be in jail.

It’s a common misconception that hate crimes violate freedom of speech, or criminalize thought. They don’t. There has to be an actual crime before there can be a hate crime. Opinions cannot be prosecuted because they are not crimes in and of themselves. It doesn’t make opinions a crime.

The operative word in “Hate Crime” is the word crime. If no crime has been committed, then it can’t be a hate crime

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Eric said “Patrick, the real question is why is it necessary to treat some assaults differently than others under the law where the same damage is done during the assault?”

But the same damage isn’t done during the assault. When a person is attacked because they are part of a visible minority it terrorizes that minority as a whole. The individual attacked isn’t the only victim, the gay community is a victim itself because its members are made fearful and reluctant to venture out because they have been told by that crime that they are a target as well merely for who they are. The same thing doesn’t happen with a random attack, no broader group feels they are going to be singled out for the same treatment because of who they are. That’s why a hate crime is more serious than a non-bias crime.

Timothy said “I to am not a fan of hate crime enhancements. I’m familiar with the arguments in favor, but hate crime enhancements criminalize thoughts, beliefs, and words and I’m not a fan of going down that road.”.

Absolutely not true. As Ben pointed out you have to commit a personal physical attack on someone or their property to be charged with a hate crime. The thoughts, beliefs, and words of the perpetrator are not punished, the intentional terrorizing of a minority group is punished.

Timothy Kincaid

September 26th, 2014

Ben,

We’ll have to disagree.

If I hit you because I don’t like how you parked your car, I receive sentence A.

With hate crimes laws, if I hit you because I don’t like your religion – and say so – I receive sentence A plus time B.

Thus the added penalty (time B) is a direct consequence of my biases. Specifically my thoughts and words in relationship to your religion.

Yes, in order for my thoughts to be punished, they have to be expressed in the context of another crime. But, nevertheless, if enhancements are added for holding or expressing particular views, that criminalizes those views – at least in the context of their occurrence.

In practicality, there are two rules broken:

Rule 1: It is illegal to assault another

Rule 2: While assaulting another, it is illegal to hold specific views or to express them

This differs greatly from the other motivations-related sentencing you reference. Yes, we sentence more for those who intend to cause harm than those who do so out of carelessness. Murder is sentence higher than manslaughter.

And we punish less severely those who act rashly or out of emotion than we do those who plan their crimes.

But with hate crimes, it not not intent or planning that drives the increased penalty. Rather it is the content of the thought, the acceptability of the attitude or bias.

Some biases are acceptable (e.g. hating gingers or – in Pennsylvania – gays) while others are not acceptable.

This all appears very arbitrary. It’s based on what biases are okay and what are socially rejected. Or, in a more real sense, it is a matter of legislating what one should believe and punishing (in some circumstances) those who do not believe what is acceptable.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Timothy said “Yes, in order for my thoughts to be punished, they have to be expressed in the context of another crime. But, nevertheless, if enhancements are added for holding or expressing particular views, that criminalizes those views – at least in the context of their occurrence.”

Enhancements are NOT added for holding or expressing particular views, they are added because the crime committed in that context has the effect of terrorizing the community that person belongs to which is not doubt the intent of the person committing the crime.

The majority of hate crimes committed against the LGBT community are committed against transgendered women such as myself. This certainly makes me fear for my safety when I go out in public and makes me stay at home more. An attack on a transgendered woman in Toronto doesn’t just affect that woman, it affects me and large numbers of women like me. There are two victims in a hate crime, the immediate victim and the broader community that the perpetrator attacks indirectly. That’s what the hate crime enhancement punishes, not any speech or beliefs of the perpetrator.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Timothy said “Some biases are acceptable (e.g. hating gingers or – in Pennsylvania – gays) while others are not acceptable.

This all appears very arbitrary. It’s based on what biases are okay and what are socially rejected. Or, in a more real sense, it is a matter of legislating what one should believe and punishing (in some circumstances) those who do not believe what is acceptable.”.

Wrong again. Red haired people aren’t included as a group protected by hate crimes laws because it is extremely rare for a red haired person to be attacked in order to intimidate and closet all red haired people. If this was, or were to become a significant problem you can guarentee that red haired people would soon become a group protected by hate crime laws.

Its not at all arbitrary. Historically some groups of people (like gays, blacks, and jews) are sought out for attacks on them as a group on a very regular basis. It is (or should be) the frequency and severity of attacks on a minority group that determines whether or not society chooses to protect that group by including them as a category in hate crimes laws.

It has (or shouldn’t have) nothing to do with which biases are okay and which are socially rejected. A reasonable person would say its just as unacceptable to attack a person because they have ginger hair and you want to strike fear into the hearts of ginger haired people as it is to attack a gay man because you want to strike fear into gays. A reasonable person would also say that ginger haired people being singled out for violence is rare and is not as great a social concern as the far more common attacks on people singled out for being gay.

So, hate crimes laws have nothing to do with legislating what one should believe and punishing those who do not believe what is acceptable. They are about punishing the often successful attempt to terrorize and oppress an entire minority through an attack on an individual member of that minority.

Hate crime laws in no way punish anyone for mere belief or speech and don’t require anyone to believe or refrain from saying anything they don’t want to.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

And as far as hate crimes laws covering religion and not ginger haired people go, I am all for phrasing hate crime laws in a general way that provides hate crime enhancements any time a crime is committed with intent to terrorize and oppress an entire community regardless of what community that is (gays, ginger haired people, fat people, or whatever). Something along the lines of “its a hate crime to attack a person with the intent to or effect of terrorizing or oppressing the community of people who harm no one that that person belongs to.”

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Complaining that hate crime laws don’t cover attacks made by someone who hates and wants to intimidate ginger haired people is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Regan DuCasse

September 26th, 2014

Hi Timothy, I’m very surprised that you think that the hate crimes enhancement is punishing ‘thoughts’ or in some way is more excessive for that reason.

That isn’t the reason for hate crimes laws at all. Priya Lynn and eric did explain the difference and I’ll reiterate a bit more.

You are containing the issue of the crime between the perp and victim, and as if the RESULT is the same.
In other words, you are defining the issue of the crime itself and who is involved very narrowly.

But you are treating the issue as if investigators, peace officers, judges, juries and those charged with adjudication can and WILL do so without bias of their own.
There are people STILL arguing and believing that Matt Shepard’s murder was a drug deal gone bad and his orientation had nothing to do with it.
But the defendants themselves used the ‘gay panic defense’, which, in previous crimes against gays, was effective in lessening the culpability of the perps.

In any other robberies in which the victim was killed, or there was extreme and protracted violence, has there been SYMPATHY FOR THE PERPS?
In this scenario, have the perps EVER been able to make themselves the victims and a jury, judge or peace officer or investigator BELIEVE it and no matter WHAT the evidence says, consider the gay person the perpetrator and therefore, the result of adjudication is considered ‘self defense’ or ‘justifiable homicide’.

THAT would be the thought policing of the gay victim. Effectively reversing justice in such a way as to allow the extremely violent to walk.
Hate crimes laws, are to ASSURE that no hatred nullifies justice being served.
The victims of hate crimes have typically been UNSYMPATHETIC to not just those who committed the crime.
So would you consider lack of bias on the part of juries and so on ‘thought policing’ as well?
The outcome of Shepard’s murder was UNPRECEDENTED in most of the country’s history of homicides or other assaults, committed against gay people.

And now, here in CA at least, the use of the ‘gay panic defense’ is no longer going to be allowed.
Way past due. But another step in the right direction against the wider range of bias.

Timothy Kincaid

September 26th, 2014

Regan,

C’mon you can’t be that surprised. I’ve said the same thing several times before and you know that I’m very libertarian in my views.

Yes, the Matthew Shepard murder was horrific. And yes the gay panic is – and should be – something that is no defense.

But that I find some attitudes horrific is no reason to cause increased sentences for those that hold them. I’m sure there are many places where my views are horrific to the locals and I should not be punished more than the next guy because my views don’t fit someone else’s views of acceptable.

And – as a side note to other commenters – surely no one actually believes that these cretins set out to “terrorize the gay community”, do they? They were drunk and full of hate and it expressed itself – but i very much doubt that they set out to go find gays to bash so let’s not pretend that this was the case.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Timothy said “But that I find some attitudes horrific is no reason to cause increased sentences for those that hold them. I’m sure there are many places where my views are horrific to the locals and I should not be punished more than the next guy because my views don’t fit someone else’s views of acceptable.”.

No one is punished by hate crimes laws because their views don’t fit someone else’s views of acceptable. They are given hate crimes enhancements because they intend and/or cause an entire community to be terrorized and oppressed.

Timothy said “And – as a side note to other commenters – surely no one actually believes that these cretins set out to “terrorize the gay community”, do they? They were drunk and full of hate and it expressed itself – but i very much doubt that they set out to go find gays to bash so let’s not pretend that this was the case.”

That’s absurd. Of COURSE they do it to terrorize the gay community. Its pre-meditated in that they have a long standing attitude that they hate gays and wish they would suffer and/or go away. That long-standing attitude is what motivates their opportunistic attack on gay individuals.

I remember specifically a gay basher telling me about how he got his friends together and went to a gay bar to bash some gays. He said after they did so they made a specific point of telling the victim “Tell all your friends!”

Beyond a shadow of a doubt when people attack a person because they are gay they are doing so as an indirect attack on gayness, on the gay community in general.

Let’s not pretend that is not obviously the case.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

These cretins didn’t attack these two gay men because they hated these two men in particular, they attacked them because they represented gayness and the gay community in general

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

To clarify, its possible that these cretins didn’t set out to bash gays that night but they clearly had a longstanding desire to harm, terrorize, and oppress gays in general and when the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself they jumped on it.

Priya Lynn

September 26th, 2014

Let us not let our desire to appear tolerant of bigotry cause us to turn a blind eye to a crime against a community, a hate crime.

FYoung

September 26th, 2014

Timothy: “…but hate crime enhancements criminalize thoughts, beliefs, and words…”

No, they criminalize intentions and motives, ie animus, and that has always been one of the main criteria for civil and criminal liability and sentencing.

Many acts, such as driving a car, are legal as long as they are not committed with intent to harm someone. The various types of homicide are mainly distinguished by intent (eg premeditation, recklessness, drunkenness, intent to terrorize). A few acts are crimes solely due to the intent (eg conspiracy, ie agreement to commit a crime), even when the intended act was never actually committed or even attempted.

In fact, in this case, intent will likely be considered even though there is no applicable hate crime law. Except that in this case the question of intent may work to get the perpetrators only a token punishment because they may have been so drunk as to be unable to form the necessary intent for some of the more serious crimes.

(I may not be able to follow this thread since I will be away)

Timothy Kincaid

September 26th, 2014

Fyoung,

Yes, they criminalize animus.

Not intent… that isn’t the key factor in hate crime enhancement prosecution. The key evidence is whether there was animus present – almost invariably evidenced by slurs or other language.

These laws criminalize animus… which is not an action or a behavior. Animus is thoughts and beliefs.

Jim Burroway

September 26th, 2014

Animus is motivation. We criminalize motivation all over the place.

Here’s how I see it.

I can be walking down any street at any time of the night and come across a mugger. That mugger is more or less looking for anyone he thinks might be an easy mark. Under those circumstances, I’m about as liable to be mugged as anyone else walking down the street. There’s nothing about me that makes me a special target, and so my chances of being set upon by this mugger would more or less be similar to anyone else’s.

If I walk out of a straight bar, day or night, I think I can pass enough as a straight guy (stop laughing, people! I’m serious!) that no one would be bothered. And if I were to walk down the street holding hands with a woman, no one would be agitated by that.

But if I were to walk out of a straight bar in many places in this country, I do run a higher risk of being the target of a crime than if I were to walk out of a straight bar. And if I were to walk down the street holding hands with my male partner, I certainly would run a considerably higher risk of being a crime victim.

African-Americans have had a long history of being at much higher risk of being victims of hate crimes, as have Jews, Muslims, and gay people. We all have characteristics that put us at a differential risk for being victims of crime. It would appear that this differential risk may have been the aggravating reason there was this attack in Philly, although I don’t think we can rush to judge until we hear more from the witnesses. (Knox’s twitter feed, IMO, is not enough evidence of intent in THIS particular incident.) I do strongly suspect that if it had been a male/female couple holding hands, the reaction to the accidental bump would have simply been “excuse me,” and nothing more would have happened.

So yes, I do support hate crime enhancements because we do differentially punish on the basis of motivation (Manslaugher, involuntary manslaughter, murder, capital murder). And we do that because different motivations carry diffferent likelihoods for the kinds of crimes that are committed, as well as different effects not just in the crime victims but also the community at large.

Ben in oakland

September 26th, 2014

Very cogent, jim.

“But if I were to walk out of a straight bar in many places in this country, I do run a higher risk of being the target of a crime than if I were to walk out of a straight bar.”

something to fix. Also something true. The first time I was attacked, it was for no other reason than we were walking outside of Berkeley’s only gay bar, which happened to be in Oakland. The second time I was attacked, it was because I was walking down the street about a block away from Castro and market. The idiot made an unfortunate assumption about me being gay. He didn’t understand that at the time (I was maybe 33) I was bench pressing 250 lbs. 30 reps. I have always hoped that he continued to hurt for a long long time.

ZRAinSWVA

September 27th, 2014

A slightly different perspective: do hate crime laws nudge law enforcement and the judicial system to do what is right just as with ‘heightened scrutiny’?

My partners gay brother was beaten to death by a redneck with a tire iron back in the 80’s. The ‘gay panic’ defense wasn’t implicitly used, but it was apparent that’s what the cops thought had happened. The guy walked away with no charges being filed because there was this ‘he is gay and therefore he deserved it’ mentality.

I don’t think he necessarily deserved an additional ‘B’ sentence because it was a hate crime, but it sure would have been keen if they’d slammed his butt in jail for the rest of his life.

Richard Rush

September 27th, 2014

Since this attack is not a hate-crime under PA law, the wide publicity and public outrage surrounding it may be the only reason it has received much attention from authorities at all. Here is an excerpt from a Philadelphia Magazine interview with a city cop under the condition of anonymity:

Q: Last week, I spoke with a longtime public defender who said she wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the gay-bashing suspects didn’t get any jail time at all. Do you agree?

A: I absolutely do. I’ve heard plenty of people saying that we shouldn’t even be handling this case, because it’s a simple assault, since we don’t have the hate crime laws like that.

They got punched in the face and beat up. That’s not something we’re handling normally. If Victor Fiorillo got punched in the face, it’s simple assault. You would fill out a private criminal complaint.

We have a pretty strict policy here of what’s aggravated and simple. Guy gets punched in the face and gets a tooth knocked out, simple assault, a private criminal complaint. If we had to handle every single fight involving black eyes and knocked-out teeth, we wouldn’t have time to do everything else.

Unless he was hit with a pipe or a weapon, we’re pretty lax when it comes to aggravated over simple assault.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/09/22/real-deal-philly-police-officer-speaks-anonymously/

Timothy Kincaid

September 27th, 2014

Jim,

On this we disagree.

While it is true that there is a higher risk of being a target of a crime for some people in some situations, that does not alter the nature of the crime.

Hate crimes enhancements make the most import determination the class of the victim, and the thoughts and beliefs of the perpetrator about that class of people, not the nature of the crime.

Or, as you say, it is the characteristics (or perceived characteristics) of African-Americans, Jews, Muslims, and gays that entitle their crimes to be considered something other than ordinary crimes.

I’m not unaware of the history of hate crimes. And, as I have said, I support tracking hate crimes, training forces about sensitivity and recognizing such crimes, and working in communities to reduce animus and increase awareness.

But I have several concerns about hate crimes enhancements:

1) they treat crimes differently under the law based on the groups into which the victim and the perpetrator are categorized. Historically this has led to abuse and we still hold an ideal that justice is blind.

2) they heavily weigh animus – and the morality of that animus – as a determinant in punishment. And irrespective of how we phrase it, this is punishing beliefs. If those unacceptable beliefs are present, the punishment is higher, if they are absent it is not.

3) they punish a perpetrator not only for their own actions but also for items out of their control: the actions of people in the past; the perceptions of classes of people not on the scene. They make an individual into a scapegoat for social ills.

3) they further feed resentment, separation, and pit people against each other based on the very characteristics that we say are inconsequential.

And at that I’ll let my side rest.

Timothy Kincaid

September 27th, 2014

ZRAinSWVA

Good question.

Spunky

September 27th, 2014

So yes, I do support hate crime enhancements because we do differentially punish on the basis of motivation (Manslaugher, involuntary manslaughter, murder, capital murder). And we do that because different motivations carry diffferent likelihoods for the kinds of crimes that are committed, as well as different effects not just in the crime victims but also the community at large.

Jim, I think you’re confusing intent with motive. My (fourth-grade) understanding of the law is that intent is what you’re trying to do, and motive is why you’re trying to do it. So, for example, first-degree murder is worse than involuntary manslaughter because of the intent (attempted vs. accidental homicide) rather than the motive. So, I think your example better illustrates differing laws based on intent, rather than motive.

Some legal experts (okay, my law-student friends) I’ve spoken to have issues with hate crime legislation because of the emphasis on motive (hatred of gay people, in this case) as opposed to intent.

By the way, I agree with Timothy that hate crimes should at the very least be labeled as such and be tracked. (For example, I’d want to know if a school teacher was convicted of a hate crime based on race.) But I am also happy to see laws that punish crimes motivated by hatred of persecuted minorities in some way. Although perhaps, in some cases, mandatory intensive sensitivity training would be more productive than increased prison sentences.

As you can tell, I’m not settled on the subject.

Timothy Kincaid

September 27th, 2014

oh… and by the way… I can count to four. I was just channeling Sia.

enough already

September 28th, 2014

I would suggest that this discussion thread be kept around. It’s outstanding.
Not due to my participation, but because of the nuanced approaches of the people in disagreement here on various details which usually fall through the cracks in such discussions.

Regan DuCasse

September 28th, 2014

I have something else that I learned over the last 18 years or so.
That gay men and women whether accused of capital crimes or not, ARE punished more harshly, aren’t paroled until the maximum sentence is reached and are executed in a more timely way will less appeals in play.
They aren’t given ‘good behavior’ pardons as much or as often. And especially not where domestic violence is concerned.
There are less defense apparatus available.
We know there are cases of transgender individuals being abused by peace officers, but also ending up in prison for SELF DEFENSE.
A transgender person, a woman in particular, rarely has had the wherewithal for self defense.
But it’s true that they are at higher risk of assault and being murdered.

I started this research as part of my crime analysis studies.
I have several encyclopedias of death row inmates, the crimes they were convicted of and their ages and personal profiles.
ENHANCEMENT of punishments, can be and has been exacted on LGT criminals.
So such an act is possible within certain judicial powers.
The breakdown gets even more interesting when it comes to gender, economic and racial designations.
LGT of color carry even more of a burden, than say white gay men and lesbians.

This is proof of the bias within those charged with justice.
I have NO sympathy really for anyone who harms another, gay or not.
But heterosexuals suffer a lot less punishment for similar crimes.
We are expected to trust the judicial system, but fails those of us who are women, minority and LGT most of all.

Sometimes I bring this information to the Museum of Tolerance, SPLC or the Williams Institute who interface such research with their own on crime and justice issues concerning the LGT.
I started it a while ago, and it’s time I updated by information and checked in with Williams and the ACLU to see which states have improved on this at all.

Straight Grandmother

September 28th, 2014

Interesting tidbit. I revealed her real name on Joe My God. The police had misspelled her name as Katherine (BTB you should correct her name in your article) it is not Katherine, it is Kathryn Knott. Within just a few minutes of me posting her real name on JMG two people simultaneously posted her twitter account. Then we all went through her twitter and took screenshots.

The next day, right away in the morning I contacted various press who were running articles about it and got them to correct their stories and make sure and use her correct name. Buzzfeed ran an article of course I contacted the Buzzfeed reporter Tony and he contacted Philly Police and they issued him a correction on her name. Additionally I contacted the press and pointed out that she was posting radiology scans on social media (twitter) and could they check with her employer about that. L to the O to the L! You know I was trying to be *helpful*

StraightGrandmother strikes again, LOLZ!

enough already

September 28th, 2014

StraightGrandmother,
I’m so glad you did. People who are in so much trouble they need scans truly don’t need to have their private sphere violated.
At.All.

FYoung

September 29th, 2014

Regan: “I have something else that I learned over the last 18 years or so.”

This information is very interesting and fairly rare. Have you published any articles or research that are available online? It would be great if Box Turtle Bulletin published an article on this.

FYoung

September 29th, 2014

ZRAinSWVA: “A slightly different perspective: do hate crime laws nudge law enforcement and the judicial system to do what is right just as with ‘heightened scrutiny’?”

Yes, I suspect the main effect of hate crime enhancements is to get the police not to belittle or ignore the crime because LGBTs are the victim. In court and in plea-bargaining, it is also a counterweight to the gay panic defense.

Richard Rush

September 29th, 2014

If you have a state with a hate-crime law that covers “real or perceived race, color, religion or national origin,” and has consciously chosen to exclude sexual orientation (one of the most prevalent categories of hate crimes), there is only one possible message being chosen to convey: “We don’t want to discourage hatred of LGBT people.” This is especially glaring in Pennsylvania where both sexual orientation and gender identity were added to the law in 2002, and then struck down in 2008 by the PA Supreme Court on technical procedural grounds. But, for the last six years the state has chosen not to fix it.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania law protects against the “desecration of a venerated object.” No physical vandalism needs to be involved for prosecution ~ merely the expression of disrespect to the inanimate venerated object. And currently, a 14-year-old boy is being prosecuted under the law for being photographed having simulated oral sex with a Jesus statue. It’s not inconceivable that he could receive more jail time than any of the attackers in the Philadelphia case.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison

MattNYC

September 29th, 2014

BTW, I attended Rosh Hashanah services in Rittenhouse Square and walked to a rally to push for adding SO & GE to the PA Hate Crimes laws and also to add those to the Non-Discrimination law. Very well attended rally for 2PM in the rain. I was very impressed with both the gay advocates/legislators and our straight allies who spoke.

I know it won’t happen in Pennsyl-tucky as long as the GOP controls the Leg, regardless of Corbett’s fate, but it bodes well.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.