Hate Crimes Bill

Texas Lynn · #11 28th July 2009, 12:19 PM

The bill passed as a part of the Defense Reauthorization Bill but the final form of the legislation must be resolved between the House and the Senate. Because there is a controversy-the bill excludes an aircraft some Congressmen want but that Obama and the military do not want-it will be a rough conference committee. In the end that should not affect the hate crimes legislation though.

plmarquette · #12 28th October 2009, 03:06 PM

The hate crime "rhetoric" seems to be one sided...protecting one facet of society, percieved as being "oppressed", and the "perception" of guilt by the "usual suspects", who disagree with them....oppose their agenda's and doctrine....

And in the same breath...the ACLU defends the "rights" of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's to exist and parade in Skokie ,IL. ....., protects the privacy of the "predators" from their neighbors, and neighborhoods....

Some thing is messed up....

spinningtutu · #13 7th November 2009, 07:54 PM

I dunno... I've been a victim of hate crimes in the past (on one incident having to live in a wheelchair for a significant amount of time)... Seems kinda surreal and bizarre to think that only a few weeks ago it was still "legal" to hate me...

Well, guess I should enjoy the legal right to be for the few weeks I have left...

[At least it actually has been passed and is legal now]

DRK · #14 20th November 2009, 11:29 AM

My concern with it is the fact that it is used for political reasons. What I mean is people use it to score points with groups. It's like passing a law that outlaws texting in your car when there are already laws on the books that deal with unsafe driving that would cover this.

Enforce the laws we have first then if those don't cover something then fix the law or create a new one.

I am tired of being a nation of lawyers who are hell bent on making our lives more and more complicated.

Dark_Lite · #15 22nd November 2009, 01:51 AM

The idea that any hate crime bill is needed is indicative of an overall problem in society. Certain groups should not have to be protected under the law. Every group should be protected equally. Unfortunately, most societies don't seem to be able to get along nicely, or at least tolerate each other, and stuff like this is necessary. This bill is needed. As long as it's not restricting things like freedom of speech, then it's all good.

its_nick · #16 2nd December 2009, 07:13 PM

Hate is a shame. Perhaps a sin. It is not a crime. In my view.

If sentencing options for battery, for example, are expanded based upon the hateful, bigoted *motivation* that some neanderthal had for the beating...then my concern is that it will be possible someday to prosecute and punish for the motive alone. I don't think that would be a good thing.

dies-l · #17 2nd December 2009, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by its_nick

Hate is a shame. Perhaps a sin. It is not a crime. In my view.

If sentencing options for battery, for example, are expanded based upon the hateful, bigoted *motivation* that some neanderthal had for the beating...then my concern is that it will be possible someday to prosecute and punish for the motive alone. I don't think that would be a good thing.

Motive is already a factor that is considered in many criminal prosecutions. For example, what is the difference between 1st degree murder (which is a capita or life offense in every state) and negligent homicide (which is usually a fairly light felony). In both cases, the perpetrator's actions cause the death of another human being. The only element that differs between is the mental state of the person who committed the crime (known by lawyers and legal scholars as the mens rea). In the case of 1st degree murder, the perpetrator is said to have acted intentionally and to have deliberated beforehand. In the case of neg. hom., the perpetrator is said to have acted negligently.

I don't see how it is all that different to say that when a person commits a violent act that is motivated by intense hate for a particular group of people that society has an interest in punishing that motivation. This does not make it a crime to have an unpopular opinion or even to have hatred towards a certain group, so long as one does not criminally and violently act out against that group. And, there is nothing that suggests that this is the beginning of any sort of slippery slope toward that end. The idea of motive as a factor in determining punishment is absolutely nothing new.

its_nick · #18 2nd December 2009, 11:51 PM

I think it's very different, in fact, dies-l. I think there's a very significant distinction.

The hate crime situation seems very unlike the significant distinction drawn between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To my mind, it's more like trying to draw a distinction between first degree murder motivated by the unfaithfulness of a spouse and first degree murder motivated by the murderer's desire for the property of the victim.

In the first-degree vs. negligent homicides comparison, the issue seems to be intended and planned taking of life over against want of proper regard or care for the life of another that results in unintended ending of life.

(And though I'm pretty certain this isn't even germane to the point you've made, I would add that the taking of the life of, for instance, a homosexual because he is homosexual could be either murder in the first degree or negligent homicide. And I suppose that it might be prosecuted as a hate crime in either case.)

The distinction between first-degree murder and negligent homicide would seem to be precisely whether or not there was intent. Determination of hate crime or not seems to hang not on the presence of intent, but rather on the content or nature of the intent that is already clearly present.

But I'm no legal scholar...nor any other kind, for that matter.

Blessings.

dies-l · #19 3rd December 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by its_nick

I think it's very different, in fact, dies-l. I think there's a very significant distinction.

The hate crime situation seems very unlike the significant distinction drawn between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To my mind, it's more like trying to draw a distinction between first degree murder motivated by the unfaithfulness of a spouse and first degree murder motivated by the murderer's desire for the property of the victim.

In the first-degree vs. negligent homicides comparison, the issue seems to be intended and planned taking of life over against want of proper regard or care for the life of another that results in unintended ending of life.

(And though I'm pretty certain this isn't even germane to the point you've made, I would add that the taking of the life of, for instance, a homosexual because he is homosexual could be either murder in the first degree or negligent homicide. And I suppose that it might be prosecuted as a hate crime in either case.)

The distinction between first-degree murder and negligent homicide would seem to be precisely whether or not there was intent. Determination of hate crime or not seems to hang not on the presence of intent, but rather on the content or nature of the intent that is already clearly present.

But I'm no legal scholar...nor any other kind, for that matter.

Blessings.

I chose the examples that I did to make my point as clear as possible (they are the two extremes of homicide in most jurisdictions). But, there are other shades of homicide that are treated as less severe than 1st degree murder that involve an intentional act. For example, most states would prosecute a murder differently if, say, a man found his wife in bed with another man and lost his temper as opposed to if he was angry because his wife had spent too much money on her latest shopping trip (the former would be treated as intentional manslaughter or perhaps 2nd degree murder, depending on the circumstances; the latter as 2nd or perhaps 1st degree murder). The point is that it is commonly accepted within our legal system that certain mental states justify more extreme punishments than others, even if the resulting action is the same.

It is completely in line with this idea to say that hatred or contempt for an entire group of people, based upon some trait that we as a society deem involuntary or otherwise worthy of protection (such as religion and perhaps sexual orientation), should be penalized, if this hatred or contempt actualizes in violent or otherwise criminal behavior. The issue is not whether we should punish people more severely based upon the reason or mental state behind their criminal activity. This is already well established. The real issues is (a) whether hatred toward certain groups is a mental state that we have an societal interest in preventing inasmuch as it is results in violent and criminal behavior, and (b) what types of group hatred warrant this type of discouragement.

its_nick · #20 3rd December 2009, 11:02 AM

Thanks. Your argument is clearer to me. I'll make sure to keep it in mind.

Blessings.