A (Skirted) Man Walks into a Bar...

[RyeOfTheDead]

The above scenario of one person kicking the living snot out another is already well covered by quite a few statutes, and said act, being felonious, would trump the "gender expression" laws rather handily.

It's a case of, I don't care why the individual was beaten up, just that they were; the facts of the case control the outcome.

Carl, I'm afraid you are actually incorrect on this one. I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to help with the understanding of what the changes to the law mean.

You don't care why, because you aren't a prosecuting or defense attorney. However, you're wrong that the gender expression laws would be trumped by the felonious assault charges. In the first post Bob mentioned was that crimes for reasons of "Gender expression" would be designated as hate crimes. Hate crimes usually carry more severe punishments. So, if this legislation passes, it does actually have a factor in a case because it could determine the severity of sentencing, as well as what charges are placed against the defendant.

The question still goes begging, however: "Are women permitted the skirt option?" It's mentioned that women are encouraged to wear trousers when out on the floor (it might be different in the front office). "Encouragement" is not the same as prohibiting the undesired option. If they wanted to be truly gender-blind in this regard, they'd institute a uniform for the floor staff and be done with.

I imagine the only reason the dress policy exists the way it does now is because it hasn't yet been an issue that needs to be taken to a higher level in the company. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that in at least one store location at least one male employee, given the shorts option, may have opted to wear a Utilikilt. But the guys that are wearing shorts are usually lot attendants or in the garden department (outside) or loading trucks, or working the cash registers.

[crfriend]

'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to help with the understanding of what the changes to the law mean.

Understood.

You don't care why, because you aren't a prosecuting or defense attorney. However, you're wrong that the gender expression laws would be trumped by the felonious assault charges. In the first post Bob mentioned was that crimes for reasons of "Gender expression" would be designated as hate crimes. Hate crimes usually carry more severe punishments.

The problem with the designation of certain acts as "hate crimes" is that they elevate the status of one class of individual (the "hated" in this case) above the legal status of everybody else. This makes the law a complete hypocricy -- "bad legislation", if you will. All it does is legislate discrimination, putting it right at the moral level of Apartheid.

So, if this legislation passes, it does actually have a factor in a case because it could determine the severity of sentencing, as well as what charges are placed against the defendant.

What happens if the actual motive was robbery? Would the more severe charge of "hate crime" (which, in practise, is an indefensible charge) prevail even if there was no "hate" involved but merely a perception of "opportunity"?

I imagine the only reason the dress policy exists the way it does now is because it hasn't yet been an issue that needs to be taken to a higher level in the company. [...] But the guys that are wearing shorts are usually lot attendants or in the garden department (outside) or loading trucks, or working the cash registers.

That's the way things usually wind up in this sort of amorphous grey area, and, given the usual glacial pace that change happens at, it'll likely stay that way until there's a compelling need to change. There's also the differentiation of "role" here where the "advisors" seem to be expected to protray a more "professional" image than the "hired help". I reiterate that it's possible to project a professional image in a skirted outfit, but one does need to be aware of the situation and the "consumer" of what one is trying to "sell" (be it building supplies or ideas).

[RyeOfTheDead]

The problem with the designation of certain acts as "hate crimes" is that they elevate the status of one class of individual (the "hated" in this case) above the legal status of everybody else. This makes the law a complete hypocricy -- "bad legislation", if you will.

I disagree. It doesn't do anything to the status of a class of individual, it elevates the status of a class of CRIMES. Attacking and/or murdering someone because they are different than you and you don't like that is a pretty ugly crime. Also, the severity of the attacks tend to be a lot more brutal than a typical assault case because of the nature of the crime.

Furthermore, part of the reason for the attempt to make this into a federal law comes from the issue of local police departments often not working a case because of their own prejudices for the victim. This is especially prevalent in transgender assault or murder cases. Making it a federal anti-discrimination law allows federal investigators to look into these cases that they previously had no jurisdiction to do so.

What happens if the actual motive was robbery? Would the more severe charge of "hate crime" (which, in practise, is an indefensible charge) prevail even if there was no "hate" involved but merely a perception of "opportunity"?

I'm pretty sure that is the exact purpose of a criminal investigation and the trial on a court of law, is it not? To determine of someone is guilty of a crime or not? Evidence, such as type of injuries presented on the victim, the nature of the assault, etc. If someone is robbing someone, they don't tend to spend their sweet time on the scene, they grab what they can and they run away, they don't stand around continually kicking or hitting someone to get their jollies off. And if they do such a thing, if I were the prosecuting attorney, I would probably push in my case that this wasn't merely a perception of opportunity to rob.

Take the Matthew Shepard case, which the legislation we're discussing partially stems from (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sh ... th_Congres

s) . The defense tried to use the argument that Shepard's murderers merely planned to rob him. The idea was that they would pretend to be gay in order to lull him in, and then rob him. But they also beat him, tied him to a post and then continued to beat him before leaving him to die.

Now, in the case of Shepard, partially due to the mass of media attention showered on the trial, both assailants received double life sentences for their crime. In this case the designation of it as hate crime was applied after the fact and applies to the case only as an academic matter for future case precedent and not as a legal ruling at the time.

I reiterate that it's possible to project a professional image in a skirted outfit, but one does need to be aware of the situation and the "consumer" of what one is trying to "sell" (be it building supplies or ideas).

Right, I don't disagree, hence my pictures thread last week where I attempted to present a professional image while wearing a skirt. However, especially in the context of a home improvement warehouse store, it can be a little off-putting or at least out of place, forgetting the safety aspects. While I think all of us on this site can agree that there is nothing wrong with a man wearing a skirt and that no one should find such a thing offensive, there is an aspect of it that is, at least in the current cultural landscape, that is pushing the envelope or being "edgy." While maybe in ten years or so such a thing would be more acceptable and not interfere with potential customer relationships, which are the key to my new job, they currently are something that could be a liability.

Another great example of this comes from my actual career, in stand up comedy. There is typically no one telling me what I should wear onstage, but I as I've said in another thread, I dress up to respect the stage. I have recently begun to experiment with wearing skirts onstage at a few open mics, places where the crowds tend to be younger and have a bit of a hipster or alternative vibe to them. However, I have yet to wear a skirt at a professional show or at a comedy club, because I have not yet figured out the best way to address the garment and diffuse the tension caused by it and move on. This has become something of a focus for me in the last couple of months at open mics, but I'm far from there. Right now I have no doubt that my wearing a skirt onstage would be a distraction from my material, especially in a lot of the places I perform at.

[AMM]

The problem with the designation of certain acts as "hate crimes" is that they elevate the status of one class of individual (the "hated" in this case) above the legal status of everybody else. This makes the law a complete hypocricy -- "bad legislation", if you will.

I disagree. It doesn't do anything to the status of a class of individual, it elevates the status of a class of CRIMES. Attacking and/or murdering someone because they are different than you and you don't like that is a pretty ugly crime. Also, the severity of the attacks tend to be a lot more brutal than a typical assault case because of the nature of the crime.

Another aspect is that hate crimes are usually part of a pattern of attacks which amount, in practice, to a form of terrorism against the target groups. For instance, there are parts of New York City and Yonkers, NY where most black people won't go because they are likely to be beaten up, their cars blown up or their tires slashed, simply for being black in a "whites only" neighborhood. I think the hope is that the fear of the more severe penalties that apply to hate crimes will encourage the bigots to restrict themselves to legal forms of harrassment.

[Kris]

Furthermore, part of the reason for the attempt to make this into a federal law comes from the issue of local police departments often not working a case because of their own prejudices for the victim. This is especially prevalent in transgender assault or murder cases. Making it a federal anti-discrimination law allows federal investigators to look into these cases that they previously had no jurisdiction to do so.

I think that's the key reason for the law. If local jurisdictions always vigorously prosecuted such cases, TG/TS groups would not have pushed so long and hard for this federal hate crime statute.
My understanding is that it has only passed in the House. A similar bill still has to pass the Senate. That is a much tougher hurdle, since some conservative Senators are staunchly opposed to any such bill, especially if it contains TG/TS protections (as opposed to just G/L/Bi).

Kris

[crfriend]

If local jurisdictions always vigorously prosecuted such cases, TG/TS groups would not have pushed so long and hard for this federal hate crime statute.

That's highly likely, and points up a problem in the professionalism of the departments in the jurisdictions involved. It make one wonder who was doing the oversight.

The biggest problem with legislation like this is that is has the tendency to produce indefensible charges -- how can one prove that one is *not* guilty of a "hate crime"? Proving a negative has always been a problem which is why laws are slated towards proving demonstrable fact, not refutation of allegation or supposition. It's a lot easier to prove you weren't at a particular place at a particular time than it is to refute a potentially trumped-up charge of "hate". In the former, one produces an alibi and a list of witnesses; in the latter, it's all up to conjecture. As a hypothetical case, prove to me that God does not exist.

[Defining an act as a "hate crime"] doesn't do anything to the status of a class of individual, it elevates the status of a class of CRIMES. Attacking and/or murdering someone because they are different than you and you don't like that is a pretty ugly crime. Also, the severity of the attacks tend to be a lot more brutal than a typical assault case because of the nature of the crime.

On paper, as the laws are written, you are correct. However, in practise things get rather different quite quickly and we find ourselves hard up against the "law of unintended consequences". Laws and penalties already exist to differentiate between levels of violence inflicted during the commission of crimes; it makes more sense to leverage those than to craft new law. In the Shepard case, which likely qualified as a capital offence if the jurisdiction had that available, the level of atrocity was well beyond what one gets at a typical mugging -- and could/should have been dealt with using existing framework where one proves the demonstrable facts at hand as shown by evidence rather than throwing in a charge that isn't readily proveable in the absence of prior history (which is explicitly prohibited during the guilt/innocence phase of a trial -- for obvious reasons).

In general, laws that exist to specifically protect an individual -- or a class -- have been historically frowned upon because they undermine the notion that everyone is equal under the law. And once it becomes apparent that the legal system is looking out for one class and not others, that has the effect of raising that class to "super-class" status and allows it license that otherwise it would not have. My argument with the proposed law regards equality under the law and proveability beyond reasonable doubt in a courtroom; that's all.

To AMM's point, all I can surmise is that there are structural failings within the communities in question that allow such behaviours to go uninvestigated and unpunished. That's a job for the New York State Attorney General's office to pursue, and if that agency finds problems with the local procedures then measures, up to and including a takeover by the State Police, are likely available.

[Kris]

If local jurisdictions always vigorously prosecuted such cases, TG/TS groups would not have pushed so long and hard for this federal hate crime statute.

That's highly likely, and points up a problem in the professionalism of the departments in the jurisdictions involved. It make one wonder who was doing the oversight.

The biggest problem with legislation like this is that is has the tendency to produce indefensible charges -- how can one prove that one is *not* guilty of a "hate crime"? Proving a negative has always been a problem which is why laws are slated towards proving demonstrable fact, not refutation of allegation or supposition. It's a lot easier to prove you weren't at a particular place at a particular time than it is to refute a potentially trumped-up charge of "hate". In the former, one produces an alibi and a list of witnesses; in the latter, it's all up to conjecture. As a hypothetical case, prove to me that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, even when prosecuting something as a hate crime. The defense doesn't have to prove a negative.
In many (or perhaps most) hate crime prosecutions the defendants have been stupid enough to make statements that can be used against them by the prosecution. For example, yelling racial or anti-gay slurs while beating the victim, or boasting after the fact about what they did to the "___" (fill in the slur), or perhaps statements before the crime that they were going out hunting "____".

... in the absence of prior history (which is explicitly prohibited during the guilt/innocence phase of a trial -- for obvious reasons).

FWIW, "prior bad acts" are sometimes admissible. The Federal Rules of Evidence (and the rules of each State), and relevant legal precedents apply. IANAL, so I can't describe how they might be used in hate crime prosecution, and they are in any case complex, and not amenable to a one or two line summary.

Kris

[crfriend]

The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, even when prosecuting something as a hate crime. The defense doesn't have to prove a negative.

Correct, but ultimately it'll end up in front of a jury, and I have seen first-hand precisely how stupid juries can be.

Back in 2007 or so, I got pinned to perform my civic duty as a juror for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is fine enough, but for the case involved the State was using a "mini jury" of six individuals, and I was an "alternate". This means I got to hear all the evidence presented but got no say in the outcome unless one of the primaries had to be let go for one reason or other. I will not go into detail on the case other than to say that it was an allegation brought against an individual and backed by precisely no physical evidence, scientific or otherwise. The primaries on the jury convicted -- on an allegation and nothing more. For the first time in my life I seriously questioned the legitimacy and impartiality of "the system"; it "shook my faith" if you will.

The results of the "case" above merely stripped a trademan of the ability to make an honest living. Something similar in a trumped-up "hate crime" case might well strip an individual of his liberty, or in some jurisdictions his life, altogether. The safeguards that are supposed to be in place failled, and failled abjectly. Do you -- and this comment is not directed at any individual -- trust that "justice" will be just in the face of some of the newer laws that are emerging?

In any event, we're veering badly off-topic here for the "Skirts and Kilts for Men" forum. If there's sufficient interest in the matter, let's re-light in the "Off Topic" one.

[Since1982]

Many years ago I quit my job as Director of a chapter of the Organized Fishermen of Florida because I saw very clearly the "handwriting on the wall".

Lawmakers are paid to do ONE thing. MAKE LAWS. If there are no laws to make, they get fired. They don't WANT to get fired so they spend all of their waking hours thinking up new laws, whether the new laws are needed or not. THIS, I'm afraid is just "more of the same".