Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature

A hate bill is a bill IS a bill to prevent more crimes to the civilization. Nothing major. They are just trying to make it a safer place.

But of course...nowhere is ever safe forever.
 
I need a scholarly analysis to determine the effect. Like a law review article. One random guy's opinion without legal analysis is worthless.
 
I mean a legal scholar. Someone who was on Law Review or is a law professor. Legal articles in law reviews analyze legal issues. These articles are reviewed and cite checked by law review students. These articles are the gold standard of law.
 
kokonut said:
Might want to actually look into it for a change instead of coming up with quips thinking they're clever ones. It's simply a case of political correctness run amok.

Expanding Double Jeopardy | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary

Federal Hate Crimes Bill Will Erode Civil Liberties and Protections Against Double Jeopardy
Click to expand...

You made the statement that the hate crimes bill was double jeopardy. It isn't. And neither of your links support your statement that it is.
 
Not an article but an explaination by an expert on bias crimes and Dean of George Washington University Law School.

. . . So I went straight to the top, to the most authoritative voice on this issue I know: Frederick Lawrence, Dean of the George Washington University Law School and one of the nation's foremost authorities on bias-crime laws.

Here's his response:

David:

Good to hear from you. Two things --

First, the procedural protections you outline along with internal DOJ policy on dual prosecutions provides much protection against abuse here.

Second, there is no constitutional problem here. There is something called the "dual sovereignty doctrine" which permits state and federal prosecutions for the same crime without any issue of double jeopardy as a constitutional matter. This is true generally -- narcotics cases, organized crime cases, official corruption cases, etc. It is precisely to avoid the potential abuse of this constitutional permission that DOJ has its own strict guidelines, limiting their actual use of this authority. Simply put, this is an issue, but not a new issue, and not a hate crimes or a civil rights issue. It is a general criminal law issue under our federal system of government and it is one that has been satisfactorily addressed for decades in practice and policy.

I hope that this useful. Let me know if I can help further.

Best regards,

Fred Lawrence
Click to expand...

The ACLU initially opposed this bill because of free speech issues. The ACLU supported the bill once provisions protecting free speech were included in the bill.
 
sallylou said:
I mean a legal scholar. Someone who was on Law Review or is a law professor. Legal articles in law reviews analyze legal issues. These articles are reviewed and cite checked by law review students. These articles are the gold standard of law.
Click to expand...

Ok. Here's a law professor's expert opinion.

Civil Rights
Lights, Camera, Legislation: Congress Set to Adopt Hate Crimes Bill
That May Put Double Jeopardy Protections in Jeopardy
By Gail Heriot*
Click to expand...
http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090216_HeriotEngage101.pdf
Gail Heriot is a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights
and a professor of law at the University of San Diego.
 
Just more maybes and coulds. Nothing definitive. Sallylou has already managed to close this case.

What exactly is your objection to homosexuals being afforded the same degree of justice available to heterosexuals?
 
What is that article? It looks like an article from a bar journal. Maybe not even a bar journal. Some kind of policy periodical. I'd consider it more credible if it came from a law review. I'll compliment her cite form. Excellent law review cite from. Us law nerds like that.

I'll take a dean of a very prestigious law school over a professor (untenured?) in San Diego. Lawyers have a very definite pecking order.
 
sallylou said:
No. Simply life in an academic profession.
Click to expand...

Bull. This was an expert opinion from a law professor with background in hate crimes and civil rights who presented a valid analysis as the next law person in the business of . And now it's "pecking order" and the level of "prestigious"?

*groan*
 
Back
Top