A discussion thread recently started to which I was drawn in. I am not sure exactly how the whole thing started, like so many discussions on the internet. I think the subject may have gotten started with some stories in the media earlier in the week focusing on hate crimes against homosexuals. As the discussion progressed I pointed out that in some jurisdictions the law protected other categories, not just homosexuals.
Originally my comments came from the legal training I received, but as my mind began to turn things over, the subject began to turn personal. More on that in a moment. I want to talk about history first. The first that I recall hearing the term "hate crime" is in connection with the murder of James Byrd in June 1998. The violence of his murder shocked the conscience of many. The facts are so gruesome I am tempted to recount them, just as a reminder to people of what a hate crime really is. Instead, I will simply say that Mr. Byrd was beheaded. Here is a link to a September 2011 story that recounts the facts as it profiled Lawrence Brewer shortly before his execution. http://www.kens5.com/news/130314468.html
In a bill signing ceremony on May 11, 2001, not long after becoming Governor, Rick Perry said:
As the Governor of our diverse state, in all matters it is my desire to seek common ground for the common good. In the end, we are all Texans and we must be united as we walk together into the future. That’s why today I have signed House Bill 587 into law. Texas has always been a tough-on-crime state. With my signature today, Texas now has stronger criminal penalties against crime motivated by hate.
I was at the dinner when the Human Rights Campaign honored the family of James Byrd for their work with the Texas legislature to include gays in the classes of persons protected by the Texas hate crimes law. And I can't remember for certain, but I believe it was the same dinner (it may have been a different year), that Matthew Shepherd's mother was honored for her work to raise awareness about crimes committed against gays. Coincidentally, Matthew Shepherd's death was only a few months after James Byrd's.
In our society we have a long history of deciding to draw lines about crimes, including classes of persons or definitions because of certain preferences. For examples, in Texas it is a capital offense to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of a police officer. And, of course, there is a definition of "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the Texas Penal Code along with the other culpable mental states of "recklessly" and "criminally negligent." Another class of persons that Texas has determined to protect by calling the crime a capital offense is children under the age of ten. Additionally, if multiple murders are committed during the same criminal act (which can involve a series of events), that can be deemed a capital offense.
For a poor law student back in the early '80s, trying to sort all of this out in her little brain was difficult. But as my esteemed criminal law professor told us, "We are in the business of drawing lines." I will never forget a wonderful back and forth in classic Socratic style in which Professor Blakely quizzed one of my fellow scholars about the "lines" drawn for statutory rape, particularly whether the victim is 16 or is only 13. Student's classic response: "If she is 16, he is guilty. If she is 13, he is very, very guilty."
Now, bringing this back to the personal, I began to think early this morning about my grandchildren. I wondered how I would feel if one of them were targeted, the victim of a hate crime. Purists will say that any crime is a hate crime, and creating a two-tiered system of justice is bad. I completely understand the argument. But we do not live in a pure society. We live in one in which gay-bashing still occurs. Lesbians are raped because men think it will "cure" them. People are in hospitals or morgues solely because of the color of their skin or the name on their birth certificates. That is the reality of today's world. I am trying to change it with love, but it is still filled with hate.
If my beloved grandchild is assaulted or killed because of his ethnicity, because he is Asian, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue -- I am a pragmatist, and I will support that decision. If one of my beloved grandchildren is gay and is assaulted or killed because he or she is gay, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue, again, I will support that decision. Under this Nana's Law, harming one of her grandchildren is a Capital Offense.
Do I believe in the dealth penalty? No. The Higher Power takes care of any death penalty.
Do I believe in life without parole? You betcha.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
It Takes Two to Tango
I'll say this right up front: I respect people's right to privacy. I also respect people's right to say what's on their mind. (Obviously or I wouldn't be blogging.) However, I prefer that we have a civil discourse. So it has disturbed me greatly to hear the recent diatribe from one particularly loud member of the media, echoed by others who think he has a point.
To be more specific, a young law student recently testified before some members of Congress about the need for contraceptives. She had not been permitted to speak before the actual committee in the House of Representatives who conducted the formal hearing on the subject -- because they did not see the need to call any women to testify. (I have heard the argument about religious liberty, but my discussion today is about contraceptives. I have a point on the intersection of religious liberty and contraceptives, too. But that's for another day.) The point this young woman was trying to make is that some people need to take contraceptives for medical reasons. Their lives are at stake, sometimes for medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy. Of course, there are other women whose lives are at stake if they become pregnant because they cannot carry a baby to term, deliver it, and still survive the delivery.
I do not intend to question anyone's theology or morality on this point. My belief is that contraceptives are available for women and should remain accessible at a reasonable cost. Because most of them require a prescription, health insurance gets into the picture. For me, this becomes sort of like wearing a seat belt. If the seat belt is available, it should be worn for protection. We may have a specific time that we are supposed to die, but I really should not tempt fate by not buckling up when I am in a motor vehicle. It's simply too dangerous. I think of contraceptives in the same manner. If a woman wants to become pregnant, that is one choice for her to make. On the other hand, it is irresponsible not to take advantage of reasonably available, reasonably accessible contraceptives. (My belief -- I'm not questioning anyone who differs.)
But that's the catch. What if the contraceptives are no longer reasonably available or reasonably accessible? If there is no insurance coverage, what is a woman to do? It is impossible to purchase over the counter birth control pills or shots. And don't even talk to me about condoms. They may be acceptable for preventing the transmission of certain STD's, but that have at least a 17% failure rate, if not greater, when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
But that brings me to the bottom line, and hence the title, of this little rant. All of the opinion pieces I've read and heard have only been directed toward women. My experience indicates it takes both a woman AND a man in that sexual act, but everyone has only been in a hissy fit over the woman's part. It is only the woman who has been called a slut. It is only the woman who has been told to keep an aspirin between her knees.
Why is it that it is still okay in this 21st century for a young man to "sow his wild oats" and a young woman is called a slut for simply pointing out the dangers of becoming pregnant if there is sexual activity? There is no mention of more than one partner, nor how soon before marriage, nor whether it is even before marriage that sexual activity is occurring. It is only assumed in the mind of [some segments of] society at large that it was a law student testifying, and therefore, it's somehow immoral.
Is it hypocritical to apply a double standard to the young men? Should the older men go clean their own houses?
To bring the entire thought full circle, words like slut or whore have no place in civil discourse. Your point will not be heard by me if you do use such words. I endeavor not to use mean, disrespectful terms, even when referring to someone with whom I disagree. Is that too much to ask?
To be more specific, a young law student recently testified before some members of Congress about the need for contraceptives. She had not been permitted to speak before the actual committee in the House of Representatives who conducted the formal hearing on the subject -- because they did not see the need to call any women to testify. (I have heard the argument about religious liberty, but my discussion today is about contraceptives. I have a point on the intersection of religious liberty and contraceptives, too. But that's for another day.) The point this young woman was trying to make is that some people need to take contraceptives for medical reasons. Their lives are at stake, sometimes for medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy. Of course, there are other women whose lives are at stake if they become pregnant because they cannot carry a baby to term, deliver it, and still survive the delivery.
I do not intend to question anyone's theology or morality on this point. My belief is that contraceptives are available for women and should remain accessible at a reasonable cost. Because most of them require a prescription, health insurance gets into the picture. For me, this becomes sort of like wearing a seat belt. If the seat belt is available, it should be worn for protection. We may have a specific time that we are supposed to die, but I really should not tempt fate by not buckling up when I am in a motor vehicle. It's simply too dangerous. I think of contraceptives in the same manner. If a woman wants to become pregnant, that is one choice for her to make. On the other hand, it is irresponsible not to take advantage of reasonably available, reasonably accessible contraceptives. (My belief -- I'm not questioning anyone who differs.)
But that's the catch. What if the contraceptives are no longer reasonably available or reasonably accessible? If there is no insurance coverage, what is a woman to do? It is impossible to purchase over the counter birth control pills or shots. And don't even talk to me about condoms. They may be acceptable for preventing the transmission of certain STD's, but that have at least a 17% failure rate, if not greater, when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
But that brings me to the bottom line, and hence the title, of this little rant. All of the opinion pieces I've read and heard have only been directed toward women. My experience indicates it takes both a woman AND a man in that sexual act, but everyone has only been in a hissy fit over the woman's part. It is only the woman who has been called a slut. It is only the woman who has been told to keep an aspirin between her knees.
Why is it that it is still okay in this 21st century for a young man to "sow his wild oats" and a young woman is called a slut for simply pointing out the dangers of becoming pregnant if there is sexual activity? There is no mention of more than one partner, nor how soon before marriage, nor whether it is even before marriage that sexual activity is occurring. It is only assumed in the mind of [some segments of] society at large that it was a law student testifying, and therefore, it's somehow immoral.
Is it hypocritical to apply a double standard to the young men? Should the older men go clean their own houses?
To bring the entire thought full circle, words like slut or whore have no place in civil discourse. Your point will not be heard by me if you do use such words. I endeavor not to use mean, disrespectful terms, even when referring to someone with whom I disagree. Is that too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)