Hate Crimes Bill

[Brennin]

I adamantly oppose the Democrats' "hate crimes" bill; the idea that some people are "more equal than others" is antithetical to the 14th amendment and ultimately unconstitutional. If necessary, the malice of the perpetrator can and often is considered an aggravating factor, but further penalizing acts via "hate crimes" legislation is simply incongruous with the Constitution as it was written and amended and the House bill is nothing more than pandering to the loyal "GLBT" part of their base.

(Thankfully, President Bush will veto the bill.)

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Hate crimes aren't about some people being more equal than others. "Hate crimes" are aggravating circumstances. If I kill someone because he is black I'm a huge threat to repeat my crime. If I kill someone because he slept with my wife, I'm much less of a threat to society. Also, killing someone because of some trait, like race, sends a threat to the rest of the people like him putting them in fear of death.

 

[Ryder]

Hate crimes aren't about some people being more equal than others. "Hate crimes" are aggravating circumstances. If I kill someone because he is black I'm a huge threat to repeat my crime. If I kill someone because he slept with my wife, I'm much less of a threat to society. Also, killing someone because of some trait, like race, sends a threat to the rest of the people like him putting them in fear of death.

And if a black man sleeps with your wife, who will determine just why you killed him?

The thought police?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

A jury of your peers who will determine if, beyond a reasonable doubt, the action you committed is in violation of the laws of the land.

 

[Jetgirl]

A jury of your peers who will determine if, beyond a reasonable doubt, the action you committed is in violation of the laws of the land.

Your action was in violation of the laws of the land regardless.

If you kill someone, for any malicious reason, whether because you don't like their skin color or you want their wallet, you're ALREADY at risk to do it again.

I reject the notion that if someone is killed for their wallet their death is somehow less "bad" than if they were killed because of their skin color.

Killed is killed.

 

[Rosco]

A jury of your peers who will determine if, beyond a reasonable doubt, the action you committed is in violation of the laws of the land.

And how do you determine the presence of an emotion beyond a reasonable doubt? Telepathy?

 

[TurtleTamer]

And how do you determine the presence of an emotion beyond a reasonable doubt? Telepathy?

The determination of motive is already part of trial law. Likewise, intent is often examined. Do you feel there would be a barrier to determining motivation for a crime beyond what we face with these parts of a court case?

 

[RacismIsBad]

I'm on the fence when it applies to hate crime legislation and murder, but I have no problem with it for something like vandalizing someone's home, burning a cross on their front yard, assaulting someone for being a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation. The attacks on these people is not meant to target one person, but it is meant to target a group, so I applaud the extension to my brothers and sisters in the LBGT. People seem to think you become a "protected class" because of this legislation, but these laws extend to everyone, it's just rare that you'd see a homosexual attack a heterosexual for being heterosexual. In addition, just because someone is attacked doesn't mean it's a hate crime because they are part of a "protected class." You still have to prove that in a court of law.

 

[CCGirl]

This would be a welcome addition to existing legislation:

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crimes investigations.

Frm the article.

 

[kermit]

I'm on the fence when it applies to hate crime legislation and murder, but I have no problem with it for something like vandalizing someone's home, burning a cross on their front yard, assaulting someone for being a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation. The attacks on these people is not meant to target one person, but it is meant to target a group, so I applaud the extension to my brothers and sisters in the LBGT. People seem to think you become a "protected class" because of this legislation, but these laws extend to everyone, it's just rare that you'd see a homosexual attack a heterosexual for being heterosexual. In addition, just because someone is attacked doesn't mean it's a hate crime because they are part of a "protected class." You still have to prove that in a court of law.

IMO, the burning cross is the perfect example of why hate crime laws are needed. Without hate crime laws the only laws that would be broken are trespassing and possibly some local ordinances about permits for fires. At most a few hundred dollars in fines. The reality is that burning a cross sends a clear message about safety of the targets of the cross; it is a direct threat to their lives. The punishment doesn't fit the intention of the action because the law is insufficient.

 

[ik_spreek_nederlands]

I'm really thankful that president Bush will veto this bill.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Let us not forget that this bill protects heteros exactly the same as it protects homos. The words "sexual orientation" were added to the existing language.

So Criminal A is enraged because of Victim B's perceived flagrant heterosexual lifestyle, and beats the pulp out of him because it it. This law extends the penalty if Criminal A is found guilty.

No problem.

 

[CCGirl]

I'm really thankful that president Bush will veto this bill.

Why? Do you oppose the existing legislation or is it just the fact of adding sexual orientation to it?

 

[Glaz]

IMO, the burning cross is the perfect example of why hate crime laws are needed. Without hate crime laws the only laws that would be broken are trespassing and possibly some local ordinances about permits for fires. At most a few hundred dollars in fines. The reality is that burning a cross sends a clear message about safety of the targets of the cross; it is a direct threat to their lives. The punishment doesn't fit the intention of the action because the law is insufficient.

Sounds reasonable to me. For murders though, it seems a bit redundant. The law already provides a considerable amount of punishment for murders and theres really no need to tack anything onto it.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Christians should then voluntarily relinquish their special status as beneficiaries of hate crime laws.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

I personally am glad to see the veto on this one. I do not think it is needed.

There is one thing I was confused on . . . Why would the Democrats not want to include seniors and the military? Shouldn't all groups be included if they want to be fair. I know the article said that adding them would effectively kill the bill, but I do not understand why. Do crimes against seniors and the military not affect their "conscience"? I hear about crimes against the elderly all the time.

From the article: “This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

Christians should then voluntarily relinquish their special status as beneficiaries of hate crime laws.

I did not know I had a special status. But, OK - I reliquish it.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I did not know I had a special status. But, OK - I reliquish it.

Hate crimes include religion.

 

[MachZer0]

I personally am glad to see the veto on this one. I do not think it is needed.

There is one thing I was confused on . . . Why would the Democrats not want to include seniors and the military? Shouldn't all groups be included if they want to be fair. I know the article said that adding them would effectively kill the bill, but I do not understand why. Do crimes against seniors and the military not affect their "conscience"? I hear about crimes against the elderly all the time.

From the article: “This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote.

I don't know about seniors but is it possible that the Democrats in Congress see the military as a hate group. A group not that needs protection but rather a group from which others need to be protected.

 

[MachZer0]

Hate crimes include religion.

You mean religions that preach against things like homosexuality and abortion are considered guilty of hate crimes by this bill?