Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."
Well duh, if you call it a hate crime there has to be some stupid thing to hate. I wonder what the other 15% is that they classify as hate crimes.
So I guess I'm allowed to attack you if you're the same sex, religion and sexual orientation as I am. No? Then what in hell is this law for? And who decides if I hit you over the head with a 2x4 because you're the wrong color or I wanted your wallet? That's the real danger of this law.
From what I have heard, the counter argument against the bill by the Bushies (and I disagree with them), is that they say it squashes the anti-gay groups First Amendment Rights to argue against gaydom... I think they are basically idiots and should pass the law as writen.
Court documents show the suspects severely beat 35-year-old Aaron Hall, then dumped his body in a ditch. The victim's family now calls the murder a hate crime.
They killed him. They fucking beat him to death. I don't care what color he was, or whether he was queer or not, there is no excuse for their actions. They are murders.... period.
I can see broadening laws against discrimination to make sure every one is covered, but laws that are already making something a crime for everyone covers that act/crime.
I don't have strong convictions on this but I just don't see the point of making laws more complicated than they already are. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?
Some crimes are done with the intention of intimidating other members of a target group. A burning cross on the lawn is more than arson and littering.
OK, good point. I'll buy that one.
Also, some jurisdictions won't prosecute, fully or not at all, certain crimes because of the sexual orientation/race/religion/etc. of the victim. Federalizing these crimes acts as a backup.
If the DA refuses to prosecute a crime, (as in written down, yeah, it's against the law), can you sue in civil court like OJ or the "Girls Gone Wild" producer?
I guess...as long as you have the resources to do it.
Your right there, you shouldn't have to... I was just wondering if you could.
I'm curious how the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007" is going to "Prevent" anything?
Like the death penalty "Prevents" murder?
All violent crime is hate crime... this is in no way a federal or Constitutional matter. It was/is a waste of our tax money.
The more the government focuses on race the more it encourages others to do so.
It's not focusing per se, so much as it's addressing certain crimes that aren't given their full due in too many cases. If all violent crimes were treated equally, without regard to the status of the victim, there'd be no need for these laws. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Also note the contentious subject of this bill is not race, it's sexual orientation.
aaannnnnd?
Race (which is color, there is only one race), sex, disabled, orientation, the deal is that as long as the courts treat them differently they can't blame anyone else for doing the same.
It is saying to a family who has a murdered father (perhaps just a white man) who's murderer did not get "special" consideration, that their father was not worthy of the court's full attention.
How nice for them.
"aaannnnnd?" the prevention part? Hell, I don't know.
Huh, I just now noticed you edited your post, rk.
Not that it matters, though...I think you're still missing the point.
Happy Monkey gave one example, "burning cross on the lawn", where the crime is more than the sum of it's actual actions. Anybody got any more?
There was a thread recently about someone who's dog was killed, its head cut off and placed on the owner's porch in a gift wrapped box. That was more than just cruelty to animals and littering. It was intimidation/terrorizing the owner.
Race wasn't involved, as far as I know, so it wouldn't fall under this hate crime umbrella, but it's the same idea. The actual damage was more than the sum of its parts. I wouldn't have a problem with the criminal being charged with more than littering/animal cruelty.
Huh, I just now noticed you edited your post, rk.
Not that it matters, though...I think you're still missing the point.
What is the point then, be specific please. How are some people's suffering worse than other's?
My "not getting it" means nothing. You did not address the post.
@ glatt. Now this is a good example of where it can go astray.
If I cut the heads off the dogs of two neighbors and one is white/straight/male and the other is not, one gets me prosecuted as a hate crime and the other probably not prosecuted at all, considering it's a minor offense. So my white/straight/male neighbor gets no justice at all.
This was my main objection.... that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others and that's neither fair nor constitutional.
Wouldn't increasing the penalty for animal cruelty be more effective?
Anything can go astray.
But, as intended, if you do both crimes, you probably can get any "hate crime" charge dismissed. Unless the white guy is a prominent civil-rights advocate, perhaps, and you intended to discourage him.
I posted that thread, and stated clearly that I don't believe in hate crime and would fight against it if attacked and they tried to use it because I was disabled. (the girl was disabled)
Hate crime legislation is prejudice.
@ HM Did you mean can't? Oh wait, you mean I can't be charged with a hate crime because I did both. I got it now.
Why should I be charged with a hate crime for either? Don't you have to make an assumption of motive unless I actually said I did it for a specific reason? That assumption could be considered a hate crime on the part of the DA in some cases.
See, this is what bothers me about this legislation, to much assuming and that's not justice.
In the dog example, Bruce, would you agree that the actual "crime" here is greater than just the sum of the parts? The owner of the dog is a real victim here, but the littering/animal cruelty charges wouldn't address that.
If I trap a mouse in my basement, and it doesn't die right away, so I smash its skull with a hammer, and then I throw it into the gutter, I'm technically committing the same crimes as the dog killer. But in my opinion, they are vastly different. One is done with the goal of intimidating/terrorizing a human, and the other is not.
@ HM Did you mean can't? Oh wait, you mean I can't be charged with a hate crime because I did both. I got it now.
Why should I be charged with a hate crime for either? Don't you have to make an assumption of motive unless I actually said I did it for a specific reason? That assumption could be considered a hate crime on the part of the DA in some cases.
See, this is what bothers me about this legislation, to much assuming and that's not justice.
Courts have had methods to determine motive long before hate crime legislation appeared. It's part of the distiction between various degrees of murder and manslaughter. It's part of the definition of libel. And now it can determine whether something is a hate crime or not.
There's nothing legally novel here.
In the dog example, Bruce, would you agree that the actual "crime" here is greater than just the sum of the parts? The owner of the dog is a real victim here, but the littering/animal cruelty charges wouldn't address that.~snip
Hell yes, I agree completely, except I think the dog is a pretty important victim, too.
But how do you know for sure the intent? How do you know he just didn't get tired of
videotaping the dog?
In my lifetime I've seen enough good intentions go awry, to pave a 12 lane superhighway to hell. Pardon my paranoia, but I'm cautious of changing shit without looking at it in every way possible.
I've also learned the legal system will not always do the right thing where there's wiggle room. Usually political pressure and expediency win out over justice.
Courts have had methods to determine motive long before hate crime legislation appeared. It's part of the distiction between various degrees of murder and manslaughter. It's part of the definition of libel. And now it can determine whether something is a hate crime or not. There's nothing legally novel here.
Novel or not, it gives the DA to much discretion. See my last post. Unless the guilty party clearly states it was a hate crime, I don't trust anybody guessing. You know damn well they will use the threat of escalation to hate crime to force plea bargains. Plead guilty to something you didn't do and get 4 years or we'll go for the death penalty which automatically prejudices the jury. Wow, they are going for the death penalty he really must be a bad guy.
You could say the same about 1st degree murder/2nd degree murder/manslaughter or libel. Also conspiracy charges when the actual crime never happened or when the defendant didn't do anything illegal themselves. Confession isn't the only thing that can be evidence of intent, and the determination of intent is more than "guessing" or "assuming".
Yes it's more than "guessing" or "assuming", it's also politics, power plays, connections and money. It's never a good idea to make the rules(laws) more nebulous.
Is the bill worded so that there must be evidence proving the crime was motivated by the intent to cause terror, or is that intention assumed by the nature of the victim? If it's the latter then this whole thing is nothing more then a huge power grab by the courts and lawers. It would be no different from the courts that sentenced blacks unfairly who commited crimes against whites before and during the southern civil rights movement.
Hate crime legislation as I have said many times before is unequal protection under the law and is therefore unconstitutional.
If a crime is committed with intent to intimidate and terrorize then add that too should be made illegal. But not just against minorities but against any person. Why should a minority enjoy a legal protection that I, as a non-minority, do not benefit from?
it still strikes me as a piece of legislation that is going to slowly erode our basic freedoms.. assumption of innocence and all that silliness. in the case of intent to commit a crime.. you better damn well have caught them in the car outside the bank.. there are a bazillion times i've tried to figure out how to do some grand illegal scheme.. just to figure out how it could be done.. not that I ever intended to do it. anywhoo! it depends too much on the circumstance as to whether or not it was a hate crime as such, and frankly I am of the opinion that the people who are elected as judges in our society really have very little contact or understanding of the society from which the persons accused of crimes come from(mostly). there is a whole different level of society and different rules to play by. and the imposition of polite' society upon that structure won't work. and yes, I know that there can't be a different set of rules for different segments of society.. although the idea of a jury of your peers? peers? I would be willing to bet, that if I were accused of a crime and a jury of ex-musician/chef/proto-artists/alcoholics would see my point, and why I did something... jimmy sunday school who is supposedly my peer.. yeah... notso much.. anyway.. enough babbling.. I don't think he's going to veto anything.. I mean he's got almost a perfect streak of not doing so.. why mess it up so close to the end of his run?
oh.. and someone who is covered tit to taint with aryan brotherhood tattoos more than likely did kill the black guy. to display ones beliefs/hate so strongly.. yeah... throw the hate crime law at him..i bet it'd stick.
But will they do the same for a black militant Muslim gang member who is out of the prison system who mugs a white person? Same scenario, so it is a hate crime.
I don't have strong convictions on this but I just don't see the point of making laws more complicated than they already are. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?[/QUOTE]
By making a hate crime, they make it a special circumstance attacking a ethnic or relgious group as being targeted for their skin color, beliefs or both.
This can be taken way to far as the 12 year old in Chicago which left his ham sandwich out the scool threatened him with a hate Crime. A Muslim could have seen this for alla bob's sake. Hate Crimes are another one of these great ideas that look good on paper.. Black and white folks are gonna be the only people charged with this shall we say Souped up crime
Black and white folks ...
Nope. Just white folk.
This can be taken way to far as the 12 year old in Chicago which left his ham sandwich out the scool threatened him with a hate Crime.
Hahaha.
Not quite.
Ah, I do love it when people fall for
the fake news (video included).
Yes it's more than "guessing" or "assuming", it's also politics, power plays, connections and money. It's never a good idea to make the rules(laws) more nebulous.
No more nebulous than any other crime with motive as a factor.
What? You're telling me that sometimes authorities have to make judgment calls, so it's OK to add more cases where they have to make judgment calls, instead of trying to keep it as straight forward and defined as possible?
You can't be serious, would you want Bush's justice department making judgment calls on your behavior?
When you don't let authorities make judgement calls, you get abominations like mandatory minimums and three strikes.
Judgement calls are what the court system is about.
But shouldn't the jury be making the calls, not elected DAs?
The problem is that its not about hate. If person A kills person B and person A hated person B and killed them because they hated them then it still isn't a hate crime unless person B is in a -sh-sh-sh-sh-sh - we aren't supposed to say this out loud - a PROTECTED CLASS consisting mostly of gays and blacks.
Again, I ask, why are they safer from person A than I am if A, for example, hates me too. Maybe A hates everybody. Now that I think about it, it puts me at risk. If mean if A wants to kill me, Mr. Black and Mr. Gay but he's only got one bullet who's gonna get the cap? Me, that's who. Why? Because killing me gets him 7-10 but killing either Mr. Black or Mr. Gay gets him 30-40 or whatever the insane difference between the sentencing is.
Another stupid, feel-good law. Just like the abominations HM pointed out earlier.
Yes, this law is stupid.
No, it is not without merit.
Like someoneorother said, a burning cross is more than arson and littering. A crime done with the express purpose of terrorizing an entire group of citizens - a hate crime - should be persecuted more harshly than something else.
A group of hoodlums going around beating up totally random people is dangerous, but only a small risk to all individuals. They should be charged for assault, battery, etc.
A group of hoodlums going around beating up every [gay/black/white/straight/funny-lookin'] person they run into is a lot more than just that. It's a direct message of terror to ALL people of the aforementioned catagory. It's a 'get out or get the shit beat out of you'message. It's a hate crime.
Maybe a better idea would be to scrap bullshit like 'hate crime'- all violent crimes are motivated by hate in some way - and instead make it a terror crime, or something.
From the U.S. Department of Justice ·
Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics
White women are raped 44.5% of the time by white men and 55.5% by non-whites.
Black women are raped 0.0% of the time by white men, and 100% by non-whites.
Does that mean 55.5% of the white women get justice under hate crime laws and none of the black women?
That statistic can't be true. To suggest that non-white women are never raped by white men is simply incorrect.
It'd be interesting to know how they conducted the survey that it could provide such a bias.
It's not a survey. It's reported crimes compiled by the department of justice. That's as close as you can get to the truth, which is impossible.
Them's the facts ma'am.
Well it'd be doubly interesting to do a study on why non-white women don't report crimes committed against them by white men then.
Can't help you there, I'm not a black women nor do I rape them.
Well I wouldn't have thought you were either, although this is the internet, so you just never know I guess. ;)
But shouldn't the jury be making the calls, not elected DAs?
They do. People are often charged with multiple versions of the same crime, and the jury has to decide which, if any, to convict on.
I don't have strong convictions on this but I just don't see the point of making laws more complicated than they already are. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?.......xoxoxoBruce
Entropy, xo, entropy......the tendency towards a state of disorder. Attempts to simplify are futile. The introduction of logic to an argument is also unacceptable.
One crime, one charge... pick one and stick with it.
That's not how it works, or how it ought to work.
In a fatal car accident, was it manslaughter, negligent homicide, or murder? How can you tell without hearing from the witnesses? Was the defendant drunk? Speeding? Did they know the victim? Was there bad blood between them? Was the car in good repair? Did the victim leap out in front of the car?
Or someone that just needed killin'.
Exactly- there's another motive-based crime: Justifiable Homicide.
The whole hate crimes idea is crazy. Give equal punishment for assault, murder etc. no matter the victim\'s minority status.
So duck2, if someone put a burning cross on your lawn, and you were the only black family in your entire neighborhood... that should be punished as only littering, arson, whatever?
Again, this whole hate crimes thing is fucked up but definitely not without merit.
So duck2, if someone put a burning cross on your lawn, and you were the only black family in your entire neighborhood... that should be punished as only littering, arson, whatever?
Again, this whole hate crimes thing is fucked up but definitely not without merit.
It should be arson like any other.
That's a crock of stinking, rotting bullshit.
Some things are more than the sum of their parts.
So duck2, if someone put a burning cross on your lawn, and you were the only black family in your entire neighborhood... that should be punished as only littering, arson, whatever?
Again, this whole hate crimes thing is fucked up but definitely not without merit.
No, its without merit. The victim of a cross-burning, since that seems to be the poster child for the hate crime folk, has a civil remedy as well.
I mean, if a lawyer can sue a hard-working American family-owned small business for sixty-five farking million freaking dollars then I think the cross burnee should be able to get a little something. This whole hate-crime business is pure, unadulterated legislative bullcrap that will crumple like a wet dishrag when evaluated against the equal protection under the law provisions of the Constitution.
But Constitutional muster has little to do with quite a bit of the legislation being written for and by self-interested, short-sighted vote-whoring politicians who just can't kiss enough minority backside.
C'mon Beestie, tell us what you really think.
That's not how it works, or how it ought to work.
In a fatal car accident, was it manslaughter, negligent homicide, or murder? How can you tell without hearing from the witnesses? Was the defendant drunk? Speeding? Did they know the victim? Was there bad blood between them? Was the car in good repair? Did the victim leap out in front of the car?
Right, pick the correct charge and stick with it, but manslaughter is manslaughter.
The burning cross argument is silly, it can be assault if meant that way... but race is not an issue. The motivator does not matter, just the crime.
It is like saying a drunk driving accident is littering because glass is left on the highway. But, those using the argument know that, it is just a red herring because they know they are losing the debate.
In Australia, if someone is charged with a crime and it goes to a jury, upon deliberation, if the jury thinks that the crime suggested is too harsh, there are options for the jury to consider which have lesser penalties, such as rape being downgraded to sexual assault for example. Murder to manslaughter.
Tell me, if a burning cross or some other well known intimidation method is placed on my front lawn, does that still fall under the hate crime legislation? The idea that only minorities can face terror tactics is also blatantly untrue. What disturbs me more is that even if the law did, do you know how hard it would be to get terror and intimidation charges to stick on a protected group who commits the crime against a white person? Nothing more then enforced 'collective white guilt' going on here.
I don't know...has a racial/religious/etc. minority ever been charged with a hate crime against a white christian person?
I forgot all about this... I was attacked once at a gas station by this insane drunk chick because I was white and bald. It was crazy.
Was that a hate crime?... she sure hated me for some reason, something about bald white guys I guess.
Of course not.
I probably would have gone to jail for defending myself if her boyfriend had not spirited her away before the cops got there.
She had probably seen some TV expose on skinheads and failed to notice you don't have swastika tattoo on your forehead.
She had something going on.
Right, pick the correct charge and stick with it,
No, the evidence determines the charge, and the jury evaluates the evidence. If there is doubt as to which charge is correct, both can be made, for the jury to choose.
yeah... that works.. in my happy little world the laws are a little simpler and populous a little more free thinking and prone to work things out in their own collective heads. there's a simple matter of what's is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.. we all ought to know on a basic level what that is. killing someone is wrong.. generally.. there are reasons to do so (personally I believe in the right of vendetta.. assuming the person is wise enough or worldy enough or whatever enough to know when that ought to or can be invoked). why? do we need laws to tell people how to feel about the facts of a case? it's a basic flaw in society..? there's this fella in atlanta going to court right now.. apparently he killed some kid to get some 'street cred' got the teardrop tattoo and a tattoo of the word 'killer' on his arm.. uh? guilty? I don't know, but he'd be really hard pressed to convince me otherwise. there is no law now nor ever that can really 'protect' anyonw from a hate crime.. if someone is going to commit that crime for that sort of a reason.. they are going to. and nothing short of hell or highwater is going to stop them. anywhoo...
No, the evidence determines the charge, and the jury evaluates the evidence. If there is doubt as to which charge is correct, both can be made, for the jury to choose.
You are agreeing with me. One charge, that is what I am saying, for the crime, based on the eividence.
Manslaughter is manslaughter. Not one charge for one "race" (there is only one race) and another for another.
However, the jury does not choose the charge, the state/county/fed does. Sometimes, they will make recomendations, but that is rare here in the US.
The state/county/fed chooses which charges to send to the jury, and the jury chooses which, if any, charges to convict on. Usually, it's just one charge, and the jury just gets to pick yes/no, but sometimes the jury gets to pick among several possibilities. So someone could be charged with assault, and a hate crime, and the jury decides based on presented evidence whether the assault is a hate crime, or a simple assault. Or, for that matter, whether an assault happened at all.
Hate crime charges are an excuse, it's just "white guilt" and a social illness.
It is criminal and a fabrication/feel good politics, nothing more.
If it were evenly applied, this would be a different conversation.
Hate Crime threads are fun!
The simple flaw in hate crime laws is that it makes murder of one person more serious than murder of a different person. Why would a gay/black/policeman/muslim/white person be more valuable to society than anyone else.
rkzenrage had it 100% correct. Manslaughter is manslaughter, no matter who the victim is. Anything different is not only unconstitutional, it's immoral.
The worst thing about it for me is that a possible assault crime is now a FEDERAL case investigated by the FBI.
So stupid, moronic, inane that it numbs my mind!!!!
Not only that the point of this is because the idiots say that some sheriffs or cops are not enforcing laws for blacks or gays...
If that is the case WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO CALL THE FBI YOU MOUTH BREATHER?
The simple flaw in hate crime laws is that it makes murder of one person more serious than murder of a different person. Why would a gay/black/policeman/muslim/white person be more valuable to society than anyone else.
The argument behind hate crimes are not, or at least shouldn't be, that blacks or gays are more important to society than straight whites, just that killing someone just because of their skin color or sexuality is worst than killing someone for another reason.
Whether you agree with a hate crime being worst than regular manslaughter or not, when it comes to murder the justice system does judge by intent so it does follow the pattern. If I kill someone in self-defense, kill someone by accident, and kill someone in cold blood I'm going to get different time in jails for each if any jail time at all.
Well if the court is already taking intent into consideration, why more legislation? Why more complicated rules? Why more pressure on the DA to decide rather than the court?
No idea, I'm agnostic on this issue.
I'm assuming because they think that extra work is justified but who knows.
Well if the court is already taking intent into consideration, why more legislation? Why more complicated rules? Why more pressure on the DA to decide rather than the court?
The DA doean't have to decide. The DA can charge both, and the jury decides.
I'm not sure, but I think part of the rationale may be to have a better idea of how prevalent racially motivated crime is.
Another part of the rationale may be that whilst the actual murder is a crime committed against an individual, if it it is motivated by race-hate it also becomes a crime against the wider group.
Nonsense, if I kill you because you're British, it doesn't make a whit to the millions I didn't kill.
But then hanging Brits by tree branches was never an afternoon activity.
Stop wallowing in the past and move on.
Yeah, pierce. Lynchings and nooses hanging from trees and trucks 'n' stuff are ancient history.
It doesn't even happen anymore does it?
It doesn't even happen anymore does it?
Nope. Today we drag them from behind a pickup - especially if they are gay.
I thought that we were tying them to fenceposts in freezing weather after beating them within an inch of their lives, leaving them to die?
Someone needs to update the fag killing protocols or we'll just have people killing them every which way, and then nothing will have been accomplished.
The argument behind hate crimes are not, or at least shouldn't be, that blacks or gays are more important to society than straight whites, just that killing someone just because of their skin color or sexuality is worst than killing someone for another reason.
Whether you agree with a hate crime being worst than regular manslaughter or not, when it comes to murder the justice system does judge by intent so it does follow the pattern. If I kill someone in self-defense, kill someone by accident, and kill someone in cold blood I'm going to get different time in jails for each if any jail time at all.
Precisely, intent, circumstance and motive are not the same thing. Motive means nothing and when physical evidence is present, is rarely brought to bear in court at all by the prosecution. There is no reason to if their case is made by facts and evidence, it is only used in circumstantial cases. Waste of time otherwise and confuses the issue.
In fact, the defense will often try to use it as a red herring to confuse the jury.