Why Hate Crimes Bill May Be Doomed

rockin'robin · 10-13-2009, 12:21 AM

The House voted Thursday to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation, significantly expanding the U.S. hate crimes law enacted in the days after the 1968 assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, allowing federal prosecutors for the first time to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays. For more on this story, click here.

The House has now rammed through a provision making it a hate crime to target gays. Should this provision become law, it’s on shaky constitutional ground, though not for the reason most people expect.

The House attempted yet again to move a perennial pet project of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers: making it a federal crime to target a homosexual for violence. Only this time they succeeded. They attached this bill as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorizations Act, shamelessly cramming this social-issue measure onto the legislation that enables our troops in battle to get funding for weapons and supplies.

This bill also includes some feel good language, saying that it shall not be construed to penalize any constitutionally protected speech or religious belief. Well, no kidding. It goes without saying that no federal statute can override the Constitution, that any attempt to do so is automatically null and void and completely unenforceable in court.

Those feel good words carry absolutely no legal force, since they simply state a truism that every court in the land automatically applies. They just provide those supporting this bill with some political cover to tell constituents, “Look, I made sure everyone’s First Amendment rights are protected here.” Religious Americans and conservatives, however, should derive little comfort from these vacuous assurances.

Now that there is a good chance that this provision will become law shortly, the question arises: Is this hate crimes provision unconstitutional?

Why Hate Crimes Bill May Be Doomed - FOXNews.com

Foxrac · 10-13-2009, 09:03 AM

The hate crime law is constitution is only if you are trying to assault or violence against gay people because of their sex orientation, just like you want beat black lady up because she is black so it is part of hate crime but for any racist or bigot word shouldn't be charge with hate crime law unless you are violence or assault against them because of sex orientation.

Now, anyone who commit like that would receive severe punishment, equal to person who assault against black people because they are black.

It is not okay to assault against gay people because of sex orientation.

Foxrac · 10-13-2009, 09:05 AM

There's good example of link, just read.
Police: New York man beaten for being gay - CNN.com

Reba · 10-14-2009, 12:01 AM

It's not right to assault any person for any reason.

If someone physically attacks any person for any reason he or she should be arrested and prosecuted. It shouldn't matter whether or not the attacker "hates" the victim.

People can be legally prosecuted for their actions, not their "feelings."

***VamPyroX*** · 10-14-2009, 12:38 AM

Hate crime or not, any kind of crime is still a crime.

Kinda pointless to make a law on something that's already a law.

"It's a crime to hit another person." Duh! You shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

"It's a crime to hit another person because he's gay." Duh again! Gay or not, you still shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

kokonut · 10-14-2009, 10:45 AM

It almost sounds like double jeopardy. You get charged for the crime itself, which is already hate going to the extreme, and then you'd get another charge for hate crime.

KarissaMann05 · 10-14-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Hate crime or not, any kind of crime is still a crime.

Kinda pointless to make a law on something that's already a law.

"It's a crime to hit another person." Duh! You shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

"It's a crime to hit another person because he's gay." Duh again! Gay or not, you still shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

I have to agree with you. I thought the law support and included homosexual people until I see this thread. I was like... er, I thought there is already have a law like that?

Foxrac · 10-14-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

I have to agree with you. I thought the law support and included homosexual people until I see this thread. I was like... er, I thought there is already have a law like that?

No, some of judge has gave unfair justice to person who beat gay people up because they are gay, such as lower the prison sentence for murder or no death penalty.

Hate crime need include homosexual that give judge to fair justice, such as death penalty for killing gay people instead of give prison for short time.

I have ask my friend and see if need more sources and will post back later.

Many people don't understand about complicated of hate crime law.

netrox · 10-14-2009, 12:50 PM

So, if a Christian is beaten up just because he is a Christian, we should treat that crime as equal as a person being beaten up for robbery?

Why don't we just remove hate crime that covers religious background?

Foxrac · 10-14-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

So, if a Christian is beaten up just because he is a Christian, we should treat that crime as equal as a person being beaten up for robbery?

Why don't we just remove hate crime that covers religious background?

Agreed....

Reba · 10-14-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

So, if a Christian is beaten up just because he is a Christian, we should treat that crime as equal as a person being beaten up for robbery?

Yes. Why not?

Quote:

Why don't we just remove hate crime that covers religious background?

I don't know. Why don't we?

Jiro · 10-14-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Yes. Why not?

I don't know. Why don't we?

your response (which sounds cold to some) sparkled a curiosity in me. I'm doing a little research on "Hate Crime" law to compare it with assault charge.

sequoias · 10-14-2009, 02:01 PM

I think there are local laws against hate crime. in Seattle, there is zero tolerance against hate crime which is why you don't see much hate crime going on there.

sallylou · 10-14-2009, 02:21 PM

Crimes require a certain intent (called mens rea). For example, 1st degree requires premeditated intent to kill, while vehicular homicide requires reckless disregard for the safety of others (criminal negligence). The hate crimes merely require additional intent--the intent to harm someone based on their race or sexual orientation. Evidence of this intent is required for a conviction as a hate crime, and if it does not exist, then it would be an ordinary murder or assault.

Free speech has always had its limits. You don't have the right to free speech on private property (e.g., the mall). Government can impose reasonable limits on time and place. There's a course on first amendment rights and it's a complicated subject. Constitutional scholars agree that hate crimes are constitutional.

I don't know why anyone would support targeting some one because of their race or sexual orientation. Some people do believe that gay people should be punished. Some people believe that a lot of people should be punished for a lot of reasons. What if some one decides that I belong in the category of people who deserve to be punished for some reason?

yizuman · 10-14-2009, 05:19 PM

It's been my observation that hate crimes is geared more towards gays and people of color, but few have I ever heard people of color commit a hate crime against a white person or person of the opposite color for that matter (i.e. Black against Asian, hispanics, and vice versa, or take any combination, but the low denominator is (insert color against a white person) rarely mentioned on the news (or purposely omitted, which makes me wonder what the actual statics are)

Also very few cases I hear about is religious hate crime in America, but happens often overseas, particularly in the middle east.

So when it comes to prosecuting someone of a hate crime, what are the statics then? Mostly against white people? How often is a case when a non-white person is prosecuted for the same said charge?

Yiz

jillio · 10-14-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Hate crime or not, any kind of crime is still a crime.

Kinda pointless to make a law on something that's already a law.

"It's a crime to hit another person." Duh! You shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

"It's a crime to hit another person because he's gay." Duh again! Gay or not, you still shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place!

That's true. However, because of the very definition of "hate crimes" this law addresses the more heinous nature of those crimes, and punishes accordingly.

sallylou · 10-14-2009, 05:44 PM

Crimes are generally a state matter. If you want to know the stats for your particular state, you can find it online. Here are the stats for my state:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/07/citch6.pdf

DURAY · 10-15-2009, 09:12 PM

there were hate crimes committing by black people against white people in LA and TX. Fox News reported them and the other networks ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN didn't report them. One did months later.
Gay people attacked straight people, vice versa.
Honor killing is a hate crime, but rarely prosecuted as ordered by the political appointees in DOJ for fear of hurting the Muslim voters.

no one is immune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yizuman

It's been my observation that hate crimes is geared more towards gays and people of color, but few have I ever heard people of color commit a hate crime against a white person or person of the opposite color for that matter (i.e. Black against Asian, hispanics, and vice versa, or take any combination, but the low denominator is (insert color against a white person) rarely mentioned on the news (or purposely omitted, which makes me wonder what the actual statics are)

Also very few cases I hear about is religious hate crime in America, but happens often overseas, particularly in the middle east.

So when it comes to prosecuting someone of a hate crime, what are the statics then? Mostly against white people? How often is a case when a non-white person is prosecuted for the same said charge?

Yiz

jillio · 10-15-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DURAY

there were hate crimes committing by black people against white people in LA and TX. Fox News reported them and the other networks ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN didn't report them. One did months later.
Gay people attacked straight people, vice versa.
Honor killing is a hate crime, but rarely prosecuted as ordered by the political appointees in DOJ for fear of hurting the Muslim voters.

no one is immune.

I'd look at anything Fox News reports with a skeptical eye.

They are known for telling less than the truth, and for distorting stories. If the big reputable news agencies didn't report it, and Fox was the only one reporting it, I wouldn't put much faith in it being true.

Honor killings aren't technically hate crimes. Those are religiously based crimes, not based on hate of the individual, but on their behavior that is contrary to religious teaching. A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against another just because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation, and no other reason.

saywhatkid · 10-16-2009, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DURAY

there were hate crimes committing by black people against white people in LA and TX. Fox News reported them and the other networks ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN didn't report them.

Good old FOX news. Perhaps they tried to "amp up" the crowd before they gave the report?

Foxrac · 10-23-2009, 07:25 AM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."Video Watch survivor of attack discuss legislation »

"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."

This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.

Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature - CNN.com

Jiro · 10-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Obama signs hate crimes bill into law

Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Shepard's mother, Judy, was among those at the ceremony that also included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder and leading members of Congress and the Pentagon, who were on hand for the appropriations bill signing.

To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to "help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray."

He cited the work of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and others "to make this day possible."

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White House.

When the bill won final congressional approval last week, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese called the hate crimes measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

Earlier this month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said in an address at the group's annual dinner. "This fight continues now and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military -- the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

However, some advocates for stronger rights for the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community have complained that Obama's administration is moving too slowly on his legislative promises.

Opponents of the expanded hate crimes bill challenged the need to specify one particular community in federal legislation. They contended that existing federal hate crimes laws were sufficient to protect the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

At Wednesday's signing, Obama also praised what he called a bipartisan effort to start changing the culture of military spending through the annual appropriations bill. He noted that Gates had worked with congressional leaders to end what Obama called wasteful projects like the F-22 fighter bomber and a new presidential helicopter that would have cost "almost as much as Air Force One."

"I won't be flying on that," the president said.

Noting that cost overruns in military projects total tens of billions of dollars, Obama called for further "fundamental" reforms in how the government and Pentagon do business.

"We all know where this kind of waste comes from," he said, citing "indefensible" no-bid contracts and special interests pushing unneeded weapons systems.

Such actions are "inexcusable", "unconscionable" and an "affront to the American people" as the nation faces two wars and an economic recession, Obama said.

"Today I'm pleased to say that we have proved that change is possible," he said.

boom. done. case closed. congratulation to gay community. nothing to debate any further.

Reba · 10-28-2009, 06:10 PM

Yeah, that was a pretty slick tactic, attaching it to the military appropriations bill. I guess it couldn't have passed on its own merits.

Jiro · 10-28-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Yeah, that was a pretty slick tactic, attaching it to the military appropriations bill. I guess it couldn't have passed on its own merits.

perhaps.... perhaps.... but it is good that they're not going to spend billions on those war toys and new gizmos for POTUS. and at least gay people won't have anything to fear from in military.

Reba · 10-28-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

perhaps.... perhaps.... but it is good that they're not going to spend billions on those war toys and new gizmos for POTUS. and at least gay people won't have anything to fear from in military.

The $680 billion for the military was passed. That's why the hate crime bill was attached to it. It was extortion. They knew that the President wouldn't turn down the military budget, so the hate crime bill was safely tacked on to it. It's an old trick.

What exactly do you mean, "at least gay people won't have anything to fear from in military"?

sallylou · 10-28-2009, 07:06 PM

Maybe he's referring to this?

Army Secretary: Military Ready To Lift Ban On Openly Gay Service

Army Secretary: Military Ready To Lift Ban On Openly Gay Service

jillio · 10-28-2009, 07:13 PM

Gobama!

jillio · 10-28-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The $680 billion for the military was passed. That's why the hate crime bill was attached to it. It was extortion. They knew that the President wouldn't turn down the military budget, so the hate crime bill was safely tacked on to it. It's an old trick.

What exactly do you mean, "at least gay people won't have anything to fear from in military"?

I still don't understand why people are so opposed to the gay population getting the same level of justice afforded the heterosexual population.

Jiro · 10-28-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The $680 billion for the military was passed. That's why the hate crime bill was attached to it. It was extortion. They knew that the President wouldn't turn down the military budget, so the hate crime bill was safely tacked on to it. It's an old trick.

what was $680 billion passed for? also - are you sure it's for military? It said DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION. Could be for law enforcement agencies and border patrol as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

What exactly do you mean, "at least gay people won't have anything to fear from in military"?

the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. thanks god it's gone.

Reba · 10-28-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

what was $680 billion passed for? also - are you sure it's for military? It said DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION. Could be for law enforcement agencies and border patrol as well.

"Defense" means the Department of Defense budget.

Quote:

Obama to sign military budget bill

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Oct 28, 2009
US President Barack Obama will Wednesday sign a 680-billion-dollar defense authorization bill, which includes funds to train Afghan security forces and for more mine resistant troop carriers.

Obama will host a ceremony before signing the bill, after waging a campaign to purge the mammoth legislation of wasteful and bloated spending.

The bill had earlier stirred fears of a presidential veto, after lawmakers permitted spending on a fighter aircraft the Pentagon opposes.

"As commander-in-chief, I will always do whatever it takes to defend the American people," Obama said, in excerpts of remarks he was to deliver at the bill signing ceremony later Wednesday.

"That is why this bill provides for the best military in the history of the world."

But warning that the bill was not perfect, the president vowed to carry on fighting to cut waste in the defense budget, which is often packed with pet projects of lawmakers for their home states.

"Wasting these dollars makes us less secure. And that's why we have passed a defense bill that eliminates some of the waste and inefficiency in our defense process.

"Today we have proved that change is possible. It may not come quickly or all at once, but if you push hard enough, it does come."

The authorization bill satisfied most of the funding requests made in the Pentagon's budget submission for the 2010 fiscal year that began on October 1. It reflected a compromise hammered out between the two houses of Congress.

But lawmakers defied Obama's earlier veto threat and approved 560 million dollars to continue work on an alternative engine for the F-35 fighter jet built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

The legislation also raises military pay by 3.4 percent and assigns 6.7 billion dollars for mine-resistant armored vehicles known as MRAPs, which is 1.2 billion dollars more than the administration had proposed.

Another 7.5 billion dollars was inked for training and equipping the Afghan police and army.

Obama to sign military budget bill

Quote:

the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. thanks god it's gone.

Thank you for clarifying.

I don't think that was included in the bill Obama signed.

10-13-2009, 12:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 2,782	Why Hate Crimes Bill May Be Doomed The House voted Thursday to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation, significantly expanding the U.S. hate crimes law enacted in the days after the 1968 assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, allowing federal prosecutors for the first time to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays. For more on this story, click here. The House has now rammed through a provision making it a hate crime to target gays. Should this provision become law, it’s on shaky constitutional ground, though not for the reason most people expect. The House attempted yet again to move a perennial pet project of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers: making it a federal crime to target a homosexual for violence. Only this time they succeeded. They attached this bill as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorizations Act, shamelessly cramming this social-issue measure onto the legislation that enables our troops in battle to get funding for weapons and supplies. This bill also includes some feel good language, saying that it shall not be construed to penalize any constitutionally protected speech or religious belief. Well, no kidding. It goes without saying that no federal statute can override the Constitution, that any attempt to do so is automatically null and void and completely unenforceable in court. Those feel good words carry absolutely no legal force, since they simply state a truism that every court in the land automatically applies. They just provide those supporting this bill with some political cover to tell constituents, “Look, I made sure everyone’s First Amendment rights are protected here.” Religious Americans and conservatives, however, should derive little comfort from these vacuous assurances. Now that there is a good chance that this provision will become law shortly, the question arises: Is this hate crimes provision unconstitutional? Why Hate Crimes Bill May Be Doomed - FOXNews.com

10-13-2009, 09:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
Foxrac DOMESTIC DISSENT HUNTER Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 18,162	The hate crime law is constitution is only if you are trying to assault or violence against gay people because of their sex orientation, just like you want beat black lady up because she is black so it is part of hate crime but for any racist or bigot word shouldn't be charge with hate crime law unless you are violence or assault against them because of sex orientation. Now, anyone who commit like that would receive severe punishment, equal to person who assault against black people because they are black. It is not okay to assault against gay people because of sex orientation. __________________

10-13-2009, 09:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Foxrac DOMESTIC DISSENT HUNTER Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 18,162	There's good example of link, just read. Police: New York man beaten for being gay - CNN.com __________________

10-14-2009, 12:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
*VamPyroX* bloody phreak from hell Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Hell Posts: 31,473	Hate crime or not, any kind of crime is still a crime. Kinda pointless to make a law on something that's already a law. "It's a crime to hit another person." Duh! You shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place! "It's a crime to hit another person because he's gay." Duh again! Gay or not, you still shouldn't be hitting that person in the first place! __________________ Check out my city... CLICK HERE! (If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

10-14-2009, 02:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
sallylou Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 2,090	Crimes require a certain intent (called mens rea). For example, 1st degree requires premeditated intent to kill, while vehicular homicide requires reckless disregard for the safety of others (criminal negligence). The hate crimes merely require additional intent--the intent to harm someone based on their race or sexual orientation. Evidence of this intent is required for a conviction as a hate crime, and if it does not exist, then it would be an ordinary murder or assault. Free speech has always had its limits. You don't have the right to free speech on private property (e.g., the mall). Government can impose reasonable limits on time and place. There's a course on first amendment rights and it's a complicated subject. Constitutional scholars agree that hate crimes are constitutional. I don't know why anyone would support targeting some one because of their race or sexual orientation. Some people do believe that gay people should be punished. Some people believe that a lot of people should be punished for a lot of reasons. What if some one decides that I belong in the category of people who deserve to be punished for some reason? __________________ Happy holidays!

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

10-14-2009, 12:01 AM	#4 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 20,799	It's not right to assault any person for any reason. If someone physically attacks any person for any reason he or she should be arrested and prosecuted. It shouldn't matter whether or not the attacker "hates" the victim. People can be legally prosecuted for their actions, not their "feelings."

10-14-2009, 10:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,708	It almost sounds like double jeopardy. You get charged for the crime itself, which is already hate going to the extreme, and then you'd get another charge for hate crime.

10-14-2009, 12:50 PM	#9 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,986	So, if a Christian is beaten up just because he is a Christian, we should treat that crime as equal as a person being beaten up for robbery? Why don't we just remove hate crime that covers religious background?

10-14-2009, 02:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
sequoias Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: A little trip to the extraordinary. Posts: 16,296	I think there are local laws against hate crime. in Seattle, there is zero tolerance against hate crime which is why you don't see much hate crime going on there.

10-14-2009, 05:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
yizuman Sci Fi Fan Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 727	It's been my observation that hate crimes is geared more towards gays and people of color, but few have I ever heard people of color commit a hate crime against a white person or person of the opposite color for that matter (i.e. Black against Asian, hispanics, and vice versa, or take any combination, but the low denominator is (insert color against a white person) rarely mentioned on the news (or purposely omitted, which makes me wonder what the actual statics are) Also very few cases I hear about is religious hate crime in America, but happens often overseas, particularly in the middle east. So when it comes to prosecuting someone of a hate crime, what are the statics then? Mostly against white people? How often is a case when a non-white person is prosecuted for the same said charge? Yiz __________________

10-14-2009, 05:44 PM	#17 (permalink)
sallylou Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 2,090	Crimes are generally a state matter. If you want to know the stats for your particular state, you can find it online. Here are the stats for my state: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/07/citch6.pdf __________________ Happy holidays!

10-23-2009, 07:25 AM	#21 (permalink)
Foxrac DOMESTIC DISSENT HUNTER Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 18,162	WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill. President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure. The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year. "Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families." Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs. Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."Video Watch survivor of attack discuss legislation » "The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." "Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country." This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians. "Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight." Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers. More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data. Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature - CNN.com __________________

10-28-2009, 06:10 PM	#23 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 20,799	Yeah, that was a pretty slick tactic, attaching it to the military appropriations bill. I guess it couldn't have passed on its own merits.

10-28-2009, 07:06 PM	#26 (permalink)
sallylou Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 2,090	Maybe he's referring to this? Army Secretary: Military Ready To Lift Ban On Openly Gay Service Army Secretary: Military Ready To Lift Ban On Openly Gay Service __________________ Happy holidays!

10-28-2009, 07:13 PM	#27 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 32,396	Gobama!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode