Hate Crimes Bill Passes U.S. House of Reps.

[Yarddog]

There a couple of definitions of pedophilia, and you (meaning most the people in the thread) switching them up, intentionally or not, is somewhat dishonest. You have pedophilia as a legal crime, though that is more of the name the media has given it.

In what way do I have pedophilia as a legal crime? I didn't know that there was a legal crime.

It is far better to just call it child molestation. Then you have pedophilia the paraphilia. That is nothing more than an attraction. This isn't about protecting child rapist, this is about protecting those who realize their attractions are harmful, but who respect society enough, and are generally human enough, to not act on them. Once you start beating them up, they aren't going to continue to play ball by the rules.

I would agree and that has been my point. A pedophile will always be a pedophile but that doesn't mean that they can not get help so that they don't act upon their urges.

Nobody should be a victim of a hate crime and we should do everything that we can the stop them.

 

[Yarddog]

Any pedophile, who has not acted on their attractions, should be protected. If we, as a society, cast them to the dogs of our nation, declaring do as you will, then why should they care to continue to play by our rules?

Even a pedophile who acted on their attractions should be protected. I can't blame any parent for wanting to extract a form a retribution against someone that targets the innocent but that is not legal in any state. It is up to our legal system to provide justice, not vigilantes.

 

[Subdood]

Any pedophile, who has not acted on their attractions, should be protected. If we, as a society, cast them to the dogs of our nation, declaring do as you will, then why should they care to continue to play by our rules?

Are you actually trying to tell us this law is to protect "latent" pedophiles?

Let me ask you something - how did (do, will) these "dogs of our nation" as you so eloquently and graciously label them, find out someone is a pedophile?

And let me stop right there, before you answer that question - answer this one - who hates whom here? We have people with desires to have sex with our children (whom we call pedophiles) and we have people who oppose pedophiles - whom you call "dogs of our nation."

Would you call that rational?

 

[Subdood]

There a couple of definitions of pedophilia, and you (meaning most the people in the thread) switching them up, intentionally or not, is somewhat dishonest. You have pedophilia as a legal crime, though that is more of the name the media has given it. It is far better to just call it child molestation. Then you have pedophilia the paraphilia. That is nothing more than an attraction. This isn't about protecting child rapist, this is about protecting those who realize their attractions are harmful, but who respect society enough, and are generally human enough, to not act on them. Once you start beating them up, they aren't going to continue to play ball by the rules.

Look - once ANYONE starts beating up ANYONE for ANY reason - they go to jail. That's the law.

We don't need another law to protect some special group of people who only have "attractions."

As I asked above - why would anyone know about such "attractions" if those with those attractions didn't tell someone? And why would someone tell someone about such an attraction in the first place? The mind wanders...

Truth is, this law (these laws), aren't about protecting those with latent perverse desires, they're about punishing and intimidating those with very real beliefs about the morality of those perverse desires and their detrimental impact on decent society. That's the truth here.

 

[Subdood]

Even a pedophile who acted on their attractions should be protected. I can't blame any parent for wanting to extract a form a retribution against someone that targets the innocent but that is not legal in any state. It is up to our legal system to provide justice, not vigilantes.

They are protected - by current laws. Just as murderers of children are protected from vengeful parents. We don't need more laws to make what is already illegal "more" illegal.

 

[Subdood]

Nobody should be a victim of a hate crime and we should do everything that we can the stop them.

Any crime is a "hate" crime. You don't rob someone, beat up someone, steal from someone, rape someone, murder someone out of love for that person.

Neither do we need special laws for REASONS people commit crimes - which is all these "Hate" crime laws are - laws criminalizing the REASONS people commit crimes.

That is a slippery slope indeed for once the precedent is set that one's REASON for committing a crime is a valid reason for prosecuting them, then you remove the crime itself from prosecution and assign criminality to a person's INTENT.

We call them "hate" crimes now - but it won't be long before there are "greed" crimes, and "lust" crimes, and crimes of "gluttony," "covetousness," "laziness," "jealousy," "sensuality" and the list could go on.

 

[Yarddog]

Any crime is a "hate" crime. You don't rob someone, beat up someone, steal from someone, rape someone, murder someone out of love for that person.

Many crimes have nothing to do with the victim but the need the the perpetrator, no emotional need is aimed against the victim.

Hate crime denotes a crime which is committed because of a particular dislike for person or group of people and motivated by something about the victim or victims, themselves.

Neither do we need special laws for REASONS people commit crimes - which is all these "Hate" crime laws are - laws criminalizing the REASONS people commit crimes.

Well, it is definite that there are laws already in place dealing with the crimes.

That is a slippery slope indeed for once the precedent is set that one's REASON for committing a crime is a valid reason for prosecuting them, then you remove the crime itself from prosecution and assign criminality to a person's INTENT.

The REASON isn't the reason for prosecution. The REASON adds to the seriousness of the crime which is already to be prosecuted.

 

[Subdood]

Many crimes have nothing to do with the victim but the need the the perpetrator, no emotional need is aimed against the victim.

I know such technicalities exist - but such a crime is still prosecuted with existing laws on behalf of the victim against whom the crime was perpetrated - and on behalf of society, against which the crime was also perpetrated.

Hate crime denotes a crime which is committed because of a particular dislike for person or group of people and motivated by something about the victim or victims, themselves.

Well, it is definite that there are laws already in place dealing with the crimes.

Yes it is, which is reason enough not to establish more laws where such laws already effectively prosecute crime.

The REASON isn't the reason for prosecution. The REASON adds to the seriousness of the crime which is already to be prosecuted.

No so with "hate" crimes. This is simply untrue. The REASON for the crime is the REASON for calling it, and establishing it a "hate" crime and prosecuting it with additional vengeance beyond what the current laws already permit.

Criminal law already allows for the introduction of either mitigating or aggravating circumstances during trial to determine the level of punishment. And bias, regardless what type or nature, is one of the aggravating circumstances current law recognizes.

Calling something a "hate" crime criminalizes the REASON, not the crime itself. And that's a slippery slope to prosecuting INTENT before an actual crime is ever committed.

 

[Subdood]

Once we set a precedent for criminalizing one's INTENT for a crime, it is but a small step to criminalizing a person's views, a person's opinions and - and what is so heinous here - a person's beliefs. At that point, the law can be used to criminalize entire groups of people on the basis of their religion (for pertinent example).

It's been done before... and exactly in the manner it's being attempted now.

 

[Hentenza]

The bill was attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill that the Senate could approve as early as next week.

I guess the bill could not stand on its own and it had to be 'attached" to a must pass bill. That's being transparent.

 

[Subdood]

I guess the bill could not stand on its own and it had to be 'attached" to a must pass bill. That's being transparent.

 

[pgp_protector]

I guess the bill could not stand on its own and it had to be 'attached" to a must pass bill. That's being transparent.

Sounds more like Standard Operating Procedure, I doubt there's a bill that gets through without riders of some sort.

 

[Yarddog]

I know such technicalities exist - but such a crime is still prosecuted with existing laws on behalf of the victim against whom the crime was perpetrated - and on behalf of society, against which the crime was also perpetrated.

That is true and that is how it will continue in most cases. Almost every state has a hate crimes law in place.
Here is a site where you can check to see each state's covered offenses.
State Hate Crimes Statutory Provisions

Yes it is, which is reason enough not to establish more laws where such laws already effectively prosecute crime.

The Bill is there to assist States and does not over ride existing State laws.
This is also a legal reason not to define sexual orientation to exclude pedophilia. They would be adding to existing State laws.

The Bill states at the beginning: "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes."

No so with "hate" crimes. This is simply untrue. The REASON for the crime is the REASON for calling it, and establishing it a "hate" crime and prosecuting it with additional vengeance beyond what the current laws already permit.

Criminal law already allows for the introduction of either mitigating or aggravating circumstances during trial to determine the level of punishment. And bias, regardless what type or nature, is one of the aggravating circumstances current law recognizes.

Calling something a "hate" crime criminalizes the REASON, not the crime itself. And that's a slippery slope to prosecuting INTENT before an actual crime is ever committed.

Show me a State or Federal law which says that it a crime to "hate". They don't exist. But if you act upon that hate and break a State, Local, or Federal law, the hate may or may not lead to stricter sentencing.

 

[DerSchweik]

The Bill is there to assist States and does not over ride existing State laws.
This is also a legal reason not to define sexual orientation to exclude pedophilia. They would be adding to existing State laws.

The Bill states at the beginning: "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes."

I have a problem with the notion that the Federal Government deigns itself in a position to be assisting the States with anything beyond its constitutionally defined duties. It used to be the other way around, the Federal government being that entity that could only do what the States could not individually do - go to war, regulate interstate and global commerce, etc.

It used to be that the states had more power than the federal government.

What right does the federal government have to stipulate, let alone facilitate or assist the states in the enaction of state laws?

Show me a State or Federal law which says that it a crime to "hate". They don't exist. But if you act upon that hate and break a State, Local, or Federal law, the hate may or may not lead to stricter sentencing.

Yeah, but we're calling them "hate" crimes aren't we? Officially or not, the intent and the repercussions are the same, which is wrong.

 

[Yarddog]

I guess the bill could not stand on its own and it had to be 'attached" to a must pass bill. That's being transparent.

What is transparent about a 281-146 vote in favor of the Bill. What is obvious is that a very clear majority favored it.

 

[Yarddog]

I have a problem with the notion that the Federal Government deigns itself in a position to be assisting the States with anything beyond its constitutionally defined duties. It used to be the other way around, the Federal government being that entity that could only do what the States could not individually do - go to war, regulate interstate and global commerce, etc.

They don't have to be defined or enumerated according to the Supreme Court in the early 18th century, (Necessary and Proper Clause)

What right does the federal government have to stipulate, let alone facilitate or assist the states in the enaction of state laws?

When an American's Civil rights are at risk the government has the responsibility to intercede.

Yeah, but we're calling them "hate" crimes aren't we? Officially or not, the intent and the repercussions are the same, which is wrong.

In what way?

 

[FrenchAffair]

Morally adverse to hiring that individual? Do you ask what other sins they've committed as well? Do you ask if they eat shellfish or get drunk on the weekends?

People need to stop bringing others private lives into their business, exactly what this law will do.

 

[Gishin]

Once we set a precedent for criminalizing one's INTENT for a crime, it is but a small step to criminalizing a person's views, a person's opinions and - and what is so heinous here - a person's beliefs. At that point, the law can be used to criminalize entire groups of people on the basis of their religion (for pertinent example).

It's been done before... and exactly in the manner it's being attempted now.

So you would like to do away with the differences between first and second degree murder, manslaughter, self defense, and the like? Because those all come down to intent.

 

[Gishin]

A lot of people here have a fundamental misunderstanding of why we have hate crime laws. Even I did when I was younger.

A hate crime is a form of terrorism. When someone commits a hate crime, it's not just against the person, but what the person represents.

 

[noroses4u2c]

Attaching controversial bills onto 'must pass' bills is like a form of legalized political blackmail. It should not be allowed to happen.