|
Post by Toad on Oct 22, 2009 17:28:30 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.htmlIt seems like over-legislating to me. This bill makes it a federal crime to commit a violent act based on sex orientaion or gender identity. Aren't violent acts already a crime - regardless of motivation? Why make a federal case out of it. If someone beats up/kills someone else, what difference does it make why they did it? Charge/convict/sentence them based on the crime they committed - not why they did it. A quote from the article: Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias... The only reason I can deduce that there would be a reason for this is maybe tougher sentencing than might occur at the state level?? But I doubt it. Just seems like show-piece legislation to me. Does someone else have a different perspective here? What am I not appreciating?
|
|
|
Post by superioragates on Oct 22, 2009 18:08:45 GMT -5
I agree that people should be punished based on what they did, and not why...but.....I think what the gov. and a lot of people are trying to do here is get rid of the "hate" in this country. Human beings in general worry about the "why" in anything and everything, we focus on it, and lose sight of the actual problem because of it. What they DON'T realize is that there is really no way to get rid of all the hate in this world, and it doesn't matter what or who it's about. There will ALWAYS be someone out there who will do something drastic, just because they don't like the fact that you are gay, or he is black, or she is hispanic. It's all politics....get the votes, and get people on their side. They are also trying to make more people aware of the hate that's out there because of race or religion, or sexual orientation.....maybe trying to make us all pay attention more??? who the heck knows, it's the government.......that should explain it all.
|
|
|
Post by deb193redux on Oct 22, 2009 18:38:14 GMT -5
I have not looked at the details of this law, but did look into the issue of hate-crime penalty enhancements a few years back. As I recall it is consistent with much of existing criminal law that considers state-of-mind, pre-meditation, in some cases the age of the victim, and whether other crimes are being committed. For example killing is killing and dead is dead – but we have 3 degrees of murder and 3 degrees of manslaughter, and at least one degree of involuntary manslaughter. Our laws do consider not just what but also WHY, or there would be no self-defense defense. Whether it was a crime of passion in a moment of excitement or a cold-blooded premeditated murder committed in the context of another crime like robbery will greatly determine the charges and the sentencing. There are also general provisions with most crimes to label the circumstances as “aggravated”, which enhances penalties.
I have heard the claim that such legislation makes “special victims”, but I think it just makes special perpetrators, who commit a crime in a higher degree or with aggravated circumstances. It just forces the court to consider particular types of aggravation. Also, in assaults or killings committed for no other reason than characteristics of the victim, there really is a 2nd crime and a 2nd victim(s). The additional crime is terrorism, and the additional victim(s) are those who share the characteristic for which the original victim was targeted. If you burn a cross on one person’s lawn because they are XXX, you damage one lawn and directly offend against one person. But you also terrorize all other similar persons who might have been chosen to get the cross on their lawn only because they are XXX.
In cases where the crime was committed for some primary reason that had nothing to do with the victim’s characteristics, (e.g. robbery, dispute), but the commission is arguably more vicious because of the victim’s characteristics, then I think the issue is more gray. Certainly it will be the state’s burden to prove the viciousness was escalated, and I would not want to be on the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 22, 2009 21:16:50 GMT -5
Daniel, what you say definitely has merit. And I guess if it was some guy in the KKK commiting a crime, I'd want the book thrown at him. But I'm guess I'm just worried where this type of thing will lead. First a hate crime against a gay person or Latino. Then against an obese person, then against someone with ADD. Then glaring at someone with a monobrow gets you locked up in the federal pen for 15 years.
Well, I'm not planning on assualting anyone, so I guess I have nothing to worry about. At least for now.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Oct 22, 2009 21:30:54 GMT -5
Politically correct BS, used to get minority votes.
Texas is known for using the death penalty liberally. ( Dang I hate that word )
So if I premeditate and murder a straight white guy, I'll most likely get the death penalty. If I premeditate and murder a black gay guy, what are they going to do? Kill me twice?
Curt
|
|
|
Post by deb193redux on Oct 23, 2009 7:21:40 GMT -5
Yes Todd, there are always slippery slope or "where does it stop" considerations. If I have a traffic accident because I cut off another driver, I would hate it if the prosecutor argued that I cut the other driver off in the 1st place because I hated their perceived characteristics - that would be going too far. I have to trust that the law will be applied where needed and not misused by unethical prosecutors. But is this really a reason to do nothing in the face of rising levels of hate-motivated crimes? If things go where not intended, that is what further legislation is for.
Curt, the top penalty, premeditated 1st degree murder, does not really need enhancing. Using this example is kind of disingenuous, and does not honestly engage the issue. (Very Faux News like in my opinion.) Enhancement is more for the lower categories. Still, there is a tradition of prosecuting multiple counts in case one gets thrown out, then the convicted still has 99years on the other 6 counts, and does not get out. Also time off on a single 10year sentence is different from time off on an aggravated 25 year sentence. Should we not want the more hateful more heinous perpetrator to be out of society for longer?
It may get some votes, or respond to the interests of people who got involved in campains, but it can still be the right thing to do. Anyway, nothing gets done in politics without some constituency squeeking.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 25, 2009 9:28:14 GMT -5
Well, as Obama said that America is no longer a Christian country. I guess we'll need special protection soon too. Then someone else can squeek about my special rights.
|
|
brent
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since November 2008
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by brent on Oct 25, 2009 10:19:41 GMT -5
Toad, your absolutly right. Your "for the people" government should be changed to "for the special intrest group". If your not in a special intrest group, your left out. It's been said in my country that if your a single white male, your screwed.
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Oct 25, 2009 18:02:43 GMT -5
well if your white your screwed from the git -- only the blacks or illegals or gays are getting anything done to protect or further there race -- its like the hell with whites --and I'm just wondering when they cut us white people out of the picture who's gonna pay tax's to support this country, (they sure ain't) welfare and handouts have been bread into them for the last 20 generations and when the fake money runs out and they cant print anymore it will turn into the wild-wild west again so as i always say buy guns and bullets i might not use them but maybe my daughter will
PS if you believe in god keep your eyes open cause your gonna be next -- my opinion the united states will be turning Muslim more so every year and we will all be infidels
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 26, 2009 7:59:45 GMT -5
Isn't 20 generations about 600 years? I didn't think the handouts started until the 1930's or so. But I'm no historian. So someone feel free to jump in and correct me...
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Oct 26, 2009 8:59:09 GMT -5
maybe I'm wrong but i was like 16 when i noticed the line next to my first real job spilling out the double doors and around the corner every time i went out for a sandwich at lunch time at the welfare office I'm now 51 if thats not long enough for ya I'm sure it was goin on way before i noticed it -- and as soon as the young black girls got kicked off there mothers plan for being to old they got pregnant and got right back on it -- but why not they had watched there mothers sit on there a$$'s growing up and collect money for pumping out kids so that became there job too -- then they realized the more kids they had the more money they got -- one of the big reasons Philly and other large Dem city's or would be dem citys with alot of poor/lazy people in them for the right amount of hand outs are over populated and in trouble -- now the illegal mexicans are doin the same and the Dem's are helping them do it with more handouts and promises --- and washington wonders why they cant stop printing fake money
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 26, 2009 9:14:12 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing with you on the handouts. It's a ridiculous system paid for by me - and everyone else that pays taxes. Just questioning the time frame. Assume you were being facetious. I might be in one of those lines myself pretty soon if my job prospects don't look up in a hurry. But at least I paid into the system for for 24 years first.
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Oct 26, 2009 9:27:13 GMT -5
thats the whole dif you paid for the protection all or mosta your life and you deserve the helping hand in times of need thats what it was created for American legal tax payers
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Oct 26, 2009 9:37:21 GMT -5
Still hoping it doesn't come to that. I'd much rather be supporting the deadbeats than becoming one. Of course, if I didn't have to support them I'd have a lot more money stashed away (in the bank or in equity).
Then, of course, there are all those rocks I still haven't bought...
|
|