Why Hate Crimes Bill May Be Doomed

[rockin'robin]

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]

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]

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

 

[Reba]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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

 

[Jiro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?