(Hate) Crime and Punishment - Do The Math

The Associated Press headline reads: "Trial set to begin in slaying of transgender woman". The murder took place recently in Denver, Colorado and the article goes on to say that the victim was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Then the potential seriousness of punishment for the crime is explained - "Andrade, 32, of Thorton, is scheduled to go on trial Tuesday on charges including first-degree murder and a bias-motivated crime, which could add three years to his prison sentence if convicted."

As I recall, the punishment for first-degree murder is either death or life in prison... exactly how does the court add three years to either of those punishments? Do they hold a semi-execution and then pause for three years before finishing the job? Or perhaps, after the prisoner dies of old age, they hold onto the body for an additional three years? Sound silly to you? It's no sillier than adding time to a capital crime based on the fact that you didn't particularly like something about that person. The crime is that the act of murder was committed, not the thought of committing murder! If we were to be imprisoned for our thoughts of doing something against the law, there would be few people walking around our streets. The second crime was committed by the government... in that they created such a stupid law.

I could be wrong about this... and the Constitution could be wrong about "equal protection under the law". Our government, in their infinite wisdom, has created a class that now receives special protection under the law, which is itself a violation of the Constitution.

Unusual Situation - Interesting Solution

Today there was an online Associated Press news article heading proclaiming, "Shelters slowly adapt to help transgender homeless". In the body of the story, it goes on to explain,"From Phoenix to New York, shelters have fine-tuned policies to recognize preferred gender over birth gender, as they balance the needs of their mainstream clients with those of an unconventional segment of the homeless."

Excuse me? Somewhere along the line I apparently failed to get the memo declaring that personal choice overrides chromosomal, anatomical, and hormonal determination of gender? It must be wherever the memo that said we get to select our skin color disappeared to... perhaps they're both hanging out with the one that requires us to ignore all proof to the contrary of what we personally believe!

Getting back to that AP article - "Having seen few such cases, however, and with limited space that winter night, she wasn't sure where to place the transgender woman. The shelter has space for homeless men and women but not anyone in between."

"Anyone in between?" Perhaps because in nature, there is nothing "in between" male and female. There is an overlap of genders in hermaphrodites, but that really isn't "in between"... it's more of a biological confusion of gender. Anatomically speaking, perhaps people in this category would be more correctly called "intersexual", and if scientific gender examination provides indeterminate results then the choice should be left to the parents (IF they choose to make that selection for their child, within 6 months of the date of birth), or to the individual upon reaching his/her majority if such selection has not been previously made for them. I arbitrarily say "6 months" to insure that such actions are taken prior to the individual psyche developing a personal preference. This would allow the individual to progress through their life in a "more natural" gender identity, and hopefully, avoid gender-related psychological crises later on in their life.

This is one I really could be wrong about. But, thankfully, it's a fight in which I, personally, have no dog ...