Trial Raises Questions About Hate Crime Definition

Last October, the Brooklyn DA's office charged three men with murder as a hate crime after a gay man they had lured, beat, robbed and chased into traffic died from his injuries. But now the trio's lawyers claim that it was not a hate crime, but a crime of opportunity.

Anthony Fortunato, John Fox, and Ilya Shurov are on trial for the murder of 29-year-old Michael Sandy; the three went to a gay chat room to lure Sandy to Plum Beach. Gerald DiChiara, one of the defense lawyers, wrote, "He was targeted because he would (a) come alone, (b) bring drugs and/or money for drugs with him, (c) go to a deserted spot and (d) probably not offer much resistance...Consequently, the crimes alleged are not crimes of hate but rather crimes of opportunity." The NY Times noted how prosecutor Seth Lieberman answered:

In his response, Mr. Lieberman began with an end run around the defense motion: He conceded that the grand jury had seen no evidence of hatred for gay men, but argued that Justice Konviser-Levine had approved the indictment, thus implicitly rejecting the same defense arguments.

In addition, he argued, if lawmakers had intended to make prosecutors prove defendants hated their victims, the Legislature would have said so in the law’s final language.

“By contrast with New York State,” Mr. Lieberman wrote, “other states have hate crime statutes that require evidence of bias, animus or prejudice.”

Citing legal scholars, he suggested that hate crime prosecutions without evidence of hatred could benefit society. As in the era of racially motivated lynching, he noted, prosecutors could alter perceptions of vulnerability among certain groups and impunity among others.

What's interesting is the DiChiara suggested that if hate crimes didn't have to have the hate proven, then crimes against the elderly, women and immigrants could hypothetically then be classified as hate crime - because age was added to the NY State definition of a hate crime in 2000.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on June 20, 2007 4:02 PM

Comments [rss]

guest

The way I see it . A "Hate Crime" Involves the use of Race, Religion, etc . The variables being employed by the Prosecutors is in fact diluting what the term "Hate Crime" implies legally . They didn't Rob, & Chase him into traffic because he was black . They did it because he was stupid enough to agree to meet a blind date for sex . There intentions were to Rob him and possibly beat the guy up a little . This does not justify a "Hate Crime", It's a simple "Rob & Vick" scenario . The fact that this guy was gay played a major role in choosing him as the victim here . The guy was thinking he was going to meet someone for a memorable night out their and it turned out to be what he should have suspected it was . By the way the term "Rob & Vick" refers to a person OR group being set up to be Robbed at a later time . The "Vick" part of the term implies to a Beat-down . A little something for all you "Hipster types" who like using street slang . Posted By; "Still Not Amused"

guest

I'm glad to hear that goody. that stuff of preserving the purity of our race for the future of our children stuff scares me. along with celebrating that guy's birthday on 4/20

guest

PS - Probably got the 1/8 from running corporate affirmative action programs. Or from my Urban Politics studies. Or from running liberal activist groups. (See what I mean about being insufferably correct) Certainly not from reading the repulsive stuff some people mentioned.

Signed, Goody.

Tim N.

I don't really want to get into this, but I think the 1/8 rule has its origins in apartheid South Africa. I could be wrong (and I suspect someone will tell me if I am, ha ha) but I seem to recall that.

As for why are the racists on the right? It gets them elected, duh!

The best the left can do is well-meaning but simplistic, overthought rules of conduct.

guest

Re: 1/8 - that was just off the top of my head. I don't know what the dividing line used by the govt is.

No, of course I don't support anything wrong. I've been correct my entire life. Bored now.

Having been attacked lots of times (grew up in a mixed-race area in the 70's), I know well that there's a fine line between being attacked because someone hates "white people," because they hate you, because they think you're an easy mark, and because its Tuesday.

I regard any attack on me as a hate crime. Ohhhh wait, as a woman, they are. Wow, I can now get extra years tacked on the &*(#$'s sentence. Hey, I LIKE hate crime legislation.

Signed, Goody Two Shoes. Peace.

guest

I think the 1/8 rule was first seen in some initiation documents or propaganda for the KKK. Then it filtered down to other hate organizations like the Aryans and their "survival" of their race propaganda or agenda.

Like when they say for the survival of the white race or something like that.

guest

hey sir, how did you arrive at the one eighth fraction? why not one tenth or one thrity second?

why one eighth?

this isn't a reference to slave papers, is it?

guest

OH for F's sake. not the one drop rule,

you're not going there, are you?

Another hypothetical, would you today or any day, trade places with a Black person or a person of color?

How bout this? you mean this one eigth person who you say is black, would the Klu Klux Klan consider her black while they are burning a cross or bombing her church?

guest

OK, here's a hypothetical case.

Black man kills white woman, gets 10 years for murder plus 2 for hating her as he killed her.

Then it turns out the woman was 1/8 black.

So, since it turns out she's technically black, her murder is not an act of hate. So the 2 extra years get deleted.

In sum, its less of a crime to kill a black woman than a white woman. Ummmm....I thought the past 40 years were about establishing equality.

Comments?

Signed: Middle-aged goody-two-shoes white liberal

ohplease

aren't all crimes "crimes of opportunity"?

guest

I think you forgot the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

guest

Until I see a white person in U.S. History strung up on a tree limb then I may change my view on hate crime laws. Until those unjust laws and unjust officials who let murderers go, then I will reconsider. Until the night riders are all eradicated and convicted, then I will reconsider.

Till then, they stay in the books if I have anything to do with it.

guest

I thought this was America where you're free to hate whoever you want. Hate crime laws are an attempt at thought control which you would think any self respecting Democrat and/or liberal would be against. But there they are, pandering to minorities by passing these unconstitutional laws.

Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Vandalism is vandalism. Why you do something is irrelevent. You get found guilty. you go to jail. Everyone is uspposed to be the same.

guest

Yep, like I said,

we need these Hate crime laws to stay in the books forever.

Why are racists always on the right? It's like that's their calling.

guest

we also need blue shirt laws, and mismatched socks laws, and bad haircut laws - stop telling me how to think. murder is murder, does it matter if I kill a fag or a chink or a cop? the left jams these pc laws down our throats, and the right appeases them and then get blamed for legislating an agenda - you people are all fucked.

guest

We need stronger hate crime laws, just reading the posts on this site is reason enough.

matukonyc

We don't need to dilute the idea of hate just to convict people.

If black Brooklynites from nearby neighborhoods enter Williamsburg to mug white people because they're more likely than their neighbors to have cash on them, is it a "hate crime?"

Unfortunately, the choices we make in life sometimes make us vulnerable to bad, bad people.