A hate crime....

[jillio]

You run someone over - you could be charged for manslaughter. You run over someone intentionally because they're gay or black or a woman or developmentally challenged, you would be charged for murder.

You're not being tried twice, but your sentencing would be more severe.

Exactly. All I am seeing in the objections is a fear based reaction, and we know what the fear comes from.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I asked him that question too.

You won't get an answer.

 

[saywhatkid]

so why this madness?


10 years mandatory for 10 grams of crack and 1,000 grams of powder-cocaine... 1,000 grams is enough to distribute to dozens of people and 10 grams of crack is enough for distribute to probably less than 7 people. does it make any sense to you?

let's not kid ourselves in here... the communities wanted to get rid of low-class minorities while overlooking cocaine sniffers in power

Not only that, those people buying the powder cocaine could easily make their own crack. When crack was big, I worked with a couple of users. They would usually smoke up their entire paychecks on Friday night. So when these crack users were caught with 5 or 6 rocks, they often had "intent to distribute" tacked on to the list of charges, even though they probably would have smoked those rocks within 24 hours, if given the chance.

 

[Jiro]

No. It's just a fact that the poorest cities in America have elected only Democrats for decades. Philly hasn't had a Republican since 1952. Detroit, not since 1961. Camden, Newark, Baltimore, etc.... All the same.

BTW, I'm not mocking Democrats. I'm simply pointing out that it was big government types with their "well meaning" legislation that did this.

seriously? you know it's a very poor way to debate if you use "oh it's this Republican and it's that Democrat" argument.

btw - about Camden.... Newark.... and whatever. NJ has been under Republican control for a while. How's it coming? still same?

 

[jillio]

Did you notice one major point from the data?
There are more white people than anyone else in the USA, by far, and they're the least of all categories to be in jail. That is really, really weird to see this -- (well, not really) but it does prove a point: whites are the most least likely to be in jail despite the largest amount of people.

Can anyone say "disproportionate application of the law?"

 

[jillio]

seriously? you know it's a very poor way to debate if you use "oh it's this Republican and it's that Democrat" argument.

btw - about Camden.... Newark.... and whatever. NJ has been under Republican control for a while. How's it coming? still same?

Exactly. This is an issue that should not be politicized. It is about human being's right to equitiable justice under the law.

 

[DeafCaroline]

No, at achieving equal punishments for equal crimes. It really doesn't matter who hits who with a bat. Assaulting with a bat is the crime. I don't think any victim of a bat assault ever said. "Well, at least we were the same race."

I think it is a disservice to victims to say that their suffering is legally less important even though they suffered the same crime.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

the suffering may have been the same for them but if one wasn't targeted intentionally, let's say it was a crime of passion - husband killed wife. They're both white.

But a man intentionally selecting a black woman to kill her because he hates black women. That's different. Hate crime laws are put in place to ensure victims all receive equal justice because the truth is, there's a disparity between justice for whites and justice for minorities and gays. I watch a lot of documentaries and saw one about native women being furious with the police in BC for taking so long to investigate the murders of their daughters. There was another about black families outraged that police express lack of interest or motivation in investigating the deaths of their children.

That's reality. Hate crime laws recognize that.

 

[saywhatkid]

seriously? you know it's a very poor way to debate if you use "oh it's this Republican and it's that Democrat" argument.

btw - about Camden.... Newark.... and whatever. NJ has been under Republican control for a while. How's it coming? still same?

I tried to ignore the "Democratic" mention. I failed.

One other thing, since when did mayors create criminal penalties for drug use? I thought it was state laws that create the sentencing guidelines.

 

[Cheetah]

Exactly. All I am seeing in the objections is a fear based reaction, and we know what the fear comes from.

Fear comes from ignorance. and guess what, that's the same place hate crimes come from.

 

[DaveM]

so why this madness?


10 years mandatory for 10 grams of crack and 1,000 grams of powder-cocaine... 1,000 grams is enough to distribute to dozens of people and 10 grams of crack is enough for distribute to probably less than 7 people. does it make any sense to you?

let's not kid ourselves in here... the communities wanted to get rid of low-class minorities while overlooking cocaine sniffers in power

Jiro, I agree with you on drug laws! That doesn't make sense.

I'm a libertarian so I believe that non violent drug offenders do not belong in jail, crowding our prison systems, and wasting tax dollars.

But the whole conspiracy about getting rid of low-class minorities is not true.

For instance our Mayor at the time, Wilson Goode, was African American in a predominantly African American city, with a large African American constituency.

Same with Washington D.C. who's mayor was actually CAUGHT smoking crack.

Are we to believe there's a conspiracy for these Mayors to clear out their constituents? I can't buy that.

 

[jillio]

Fear comes from ignorance. and guess what, that's the same place hate crimes come from.

 

[saywhatkid]

Jiro, I agree with you on drug laws! That doesn't make sense.

I'm a libertarian so I believe that non violent drug offenders do not belong in jail, crowding our prison systems, and wasting tax dollars.

But the whole conspiracy about getting rid of low-class minorities is not true.

For instance our Mayor at the time, Wilson Goode, was African American in a predominantly African American city, with a large African American constituency.

Same with Washington D.C. who's mayor was actually CAUGHT smoking crack.

Are we to believe there's a conspiracy for these Mayors to clear out their constituents? I can't buy that.

But can the mayor pass laws that provide sentencing guidelines?

Loved that DEMOCRATIC Marion Barry was re-elected after finishing his sentence. That must have ruffled a few feathers.

 

[Jiro]

koko kept mentioning about double jeopardy without further explanation because I know for sure that his concern about Hate Crime law including lack of explanation for his stance is not an original thought of his. Just a mere regurgitation of some lunatic Republicans with some Orwellian paranoia. and yep I was right in my assumption.

Social Conservatives Blast Hate-Crime Bill, Saying It Will Limit Free Speech | Fox News

A Senate hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims is rousing the ire of social conservatives who say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if it becomes law.

"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.

"It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race. It's all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda," Staver said.

For much of the last decade gay rights activists have been fighting for inclusion within the federal hate crimes law, which places greater penalties on crimes that are committed based on race, ethnicity and religion. Social conservatives, including former President George W. Bush, have fought the legislation on the grounds it could be used to prosecute religious groups who say homosexuality is morally wrong.

But with Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, gay rights activists are confident the law will pass and President Obama will sign it. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 249-175.

"This is one of the most supportive environments we've had," said Thomas Howard, Jr., programs director for the Matthew Shepard Foundation, an advocacy group named for the gay University of Wyoming student whose 1998 murder became a rallying point for homosexuals.

"The issue is when someone is targeted as a direct result of who they are. This isn't about telling people what they can and can not say."

Frederick Lawrence, a law professor at George Washington University, said there is nothing within the language of the hate crimes bill that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who simply speak out against a particular sexual or ethnic group.

"The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement," he said. "Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, can not be criminalized."

But that is doing little to calm conservative bloggers, who are outraged by the possibility that a suspect acquitted of a crime in state court can be retried in federal court if the case becomes categorized as a hate crime.

"That is true and it's not unique to the hate crimes arena," said Lawrence. "There is an exception to double jeopardy called the dual sovereignty doctrine. But the Department of Justice has a very strict set of regulations when they can retry someone."

During the debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., angered gay rights activists by claiming Shepard was murdered in a robbery, and not because he was gay.

"(The) hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," Foxx said.

The congresswoman later apologized, calling the word hoax "a poor choice of words," according to The Associated Press.

In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard's murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay -- contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.

The piece went on to portray Shepard as a troubled individual and included an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard's sexual orientation.

"It's something we hear quite a bit," Howard said. "I'd like to ask (Foxx) if she has read the trial transcript. Certain individuals completely changed their stories."

so kokonut.... I'm still waiting. Has double jeopardy under hate crime happened?

 

[DaveM]

Given your mention of Democrats, it is obviously an important part of your post. I note that a lot of those cities are east coast, except for Detroit. I would also venture that they were all predominantly black at the time of the crack binge.

Saywhatkid, when a single party has a stranglehold over everything and have been controlling the political machine for decades, it becomes a business. In this case it just happens to be Democrats...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[DaveM]

I tried to ignore the "Democratic" mention. I failed.

One other thing, since when did mayors create criminal penalties for drug use? I thought it was state laws that create the sentencing guidelines.

Mayors sign bills passed through the city legislators. Mayors also help influence Governors in what laws get passed at a State level.

 

[jillio]

Saywhatkid, when a single party has a stranglehold over everything and have been controlling the political machine for decades, it becomes a business. In this case it just happens to be Democrats...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Democrats have not held power consistently through history. So, using your politicized viewpoint, explain please, the long history of inequitable application of laws in this country, and the creation of laws with disproportionate negative effect on minorities.

 

[saywhatkid]

Saywhatkid, when a single party has a stranglehold over everything and have been controlling the political machine for decades, it becomes a business. In this case it just happens to be Democrats...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are avoiding the question. Jiro mentioned that the state of NJ has had several Republican governors during the 1980's through today. You are beating the drums loudly that the Democratic mayors passed unequal drug laws from their city desk, and have absolute powers that have corrupted them. If you leave out the party, it might make your argument a bit more believeable.

There are many members here that you can join with to bash Liberals. Feel free to do so.

 

[jillio]

Mayors sign bills passed through the city legislators. Mayors also help influence Governors in what laws get passed at a State level.

In other words, they don't.

 

[jillio]

You are avoiding the question. Jiro mentioned that the state of NJ has had several Republican governors during the 1980's through today. You are beating the drums loudly that the Democratic mayors passed unequal drug laws from their city desk, and have absolute powers that have corrupted them. If you leave out the party, it might make your argument a bit more believeable.

There are many members here that you can join with to bash Liberals. Feel free to do so.

I can make a referral to a couple!

 

[saywhatkid]

Mayors sign bills passed through the city legislators. Mayors also help influence Governors in what laws get passed at a State level.

So you are telling me that Democratic mayors, working with Republican governors, passed laws together? They cooperated?

Yet the blame falls on the Democrats because they had power that corrupted them?