Hate crimes

[vidcc]

The house has passed a bill that would extend "hate crimes" This bill extends coverage to those who are victims of crime based on sexual orientation, gender identification, or disability. The senate looks like it will pass their version.


“federal laws against certain categories of hate crimes have been on the books since 1969, and now cover cases where people or property are targeted on grounds of race, religion, color or national origin. The House measure would add sexual orientation, gender and gender identity and disability to the list. It also budgets $10 million over the next two years to supplement local authorities in prosecuting of hate crimes, and allows federal officials to participate in investigations.source (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705050549may05,1,2440888.story?page=2&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

Bush has vowed to veto the bill.

It has been described by opponents (those that find homosexuality offensive) as making thought a crime and could make criminals out of church preachers (or whatever title the religion uses) Which is actually not the case at all because a crime has to be committed. Saying homosexuality is immoral or such like doesn't come close.

So should sexual orientation be added to the federal (different from state) hate crime laws

poll on it's way

[Skiz]

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't the veto primarily because this would cost millions in federal money to cover what the state and local laws already do?

[vidcc]

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't the veto primarily because this would cost millions in federal money to cover what the state and local laws already do?

From this president?????????? :noes:

IF that was the case why in all the years the republican held both houses and the presidency didn't they repeal the hate crime laws altogether? They had the votes.........

BTW there is a difference between a hate crime and a generic assault.


Edit: I forgot to make it a public poll (showing names) Did you vote no need but keep the present caterories?

[j2k4]

BTW there is a difference between a hate crime and a generic assault.


There is a difference between theft and murder.

There is a difference between littering and rape.

There is a difference between perjury and kidnapping.

BTW-what is a "generic assault"?

Hate crimes legislation of any type is utterly stupid (there's that word again).

Something else:

Can a Muslim in the United States be convicted of jihad by committing a crime against a Christian, and would you call that a hate crime?

That last question is not rhetorical; I would honestly like an answer.

[vidcc]

BTW there is a difference between a hate crime and a generic assault.


There is a difference between theft and murder.

There is a difference between littering and rape.

There is a difference between perjury and kidnapping.



A hate crime is different than a simple murder or assault as it incites fear into a specific community. If a group of KKK members came into your community and lynched an African-American man this would incite fear among African-Americans. Similarly, if a Neo-Nazi spray paints a swastika on a synagogue this would incite fear into the Jewish community. An essential part of our judicial system is to ensure public safety and maintain public order. A hate crime affects more than just the one person who gets physically harmed -- it provokes fear into an entire community. That is the difference.




The only persuasive argument I've seen is given in the bill (Sec 2.2 and 2.5). Basically, if you attack someone because they belong to a specific group, you've also (negatively) affected that group. In any crime, those directly connected to the victim will be affected. If the crime is motivated due to hatred of a group, everyone in that group is affected, not just those with a direct connection to the victim. Since the effects are farther reaching, it makes sense to me that the crime would be considered more severe.







BTW-what is a "generic assault"? A random attack such as assaulting someone in a bar because they looked at your woman (as an example only and not all encompassing)


Hate crimes legislation of any type is utterly stupid (there's that word again).

see above



Something else:

Can a Muslim in the United States be convicted of jihad by committing a crime against a Christian, and would you call that a hate crime?

That last question is not rhetorical; I would honestly like an answer.

If it is shown that the reason the Muslim did it was because the victim is a Christian then yes it's absolutely a hate crime and is already covered in the present hate crime legislation. I am unaware if there is a specific crime of "jihad" with which one can be charged in the United states

[j2k4]

If the perpetrator of an offense is prosecuted and fined/incarcerated or otherwise penalized for his trespass, that is sufficient.

Hate crime penalties are stupid, and that is all there is to it.

To even contemplate more of the same is the height of time-wasting, and there is no argument capable of lessening the unremitting idiocy of the endeavor.

[vidcc]

If the perpetrator of an offense is prosecuted and fined/incarcerated or otherwise penalized for his trespass, that is sufficient.

Hate crime penalties are stupid, and that is all there is to it.

To even contemplate more of the same is the height of time-wasting, and there is no argument capable of lessening the unremitting idiocy of the endeavor.
So because you disagree then there should be no debate and the subject has no validity :rolleyes:

Intent is a huge part of the prosecution process. We have different degrees of murder for example and as such the penalty is higher for some murders than others.
You obviously think that intent should have nothing to do with the severity of the sentence.

edit:

Also making it federal protects the victims that suffer in bigotsville as much as the ones where that sort of thing is not given the "well perhaps they shouldn't have done it but we can understand why" treatment

[j2k4]

So because you disagree then there should be no debate and the subject has no validity.

Yeah.

Like Global Warming that way.

[phrenzy]

So because you disagree then there should be no debate and the subject has no validity.

Yeah.

Like Global Warming that way.


:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: Somehow that made me laugh..

[SHUVT]

So what your saying is... if I call a woman a Bitch before back handing her, it is no longer asault it is a hate crime? This is just one more ridiculous thing that will waste tons of money and clog the entire juducial system with so called hate crimes, everytime someone gets there ass beat or gets looked at funny.

[vidcc]

So what your saying is... if I call a woman a Bitch before back handing her, it is no longer asault it is a hate crime?
No.



on a side note I would like to ask whoever said "no there is no need, but keep the present categories" why they think that the present categories merit special treatment but not those targeted specifically for their sexuality?

[j2k4]

Perhaps I should have been more comprehensive in my answer:

Eliminate all hate-crimes legislation having to do with religion, race, sexuality or any of the other sundry and currently favored victimologies.

Wipe that shit off the books, and do it now.

Instead, make the particular brand of stupid-think that leads to such legislation a crime punishable by death. ;)

[vidcc]

Perhaps I should have been more comprehensive in my answer:

Eliminate all hate-crimes legislation having to do with religion, race, sexuality or any of the other sundry and currently favored victimologies.

Wipe that shit off the books, and do it now.
You made that obvious and although I disagree at least you don't have exceptions.



Instead, make the particular brand of stupid-think that leads to such legislation a crime punishable by death. ;)

And then by making derogatory remarks instead of debating, your views on the topic are marginalized.


My question is to those that think certain categories such as religion merit the extra seriousness standard of the crime but not for other groups.


There has been a lot of misleading statements made about this bill and by far most objections I have seen have been about the bill doing things it does not do.

[j2k4]

You made that obvious and although I disagree at least you don't have exceptions.



Instead, make the particular brand of stupid-think that leads to such legislation a crime punishable by death. ;)

Any need for the exceptions you seek is met by the variety of penalties extant, i.e., those having to do with murder, which you have already pointed out.


And then by making derogatory remarks instead of debating, your views on the topic are marginalized.


My question is to those that think certain categories such as religion merit the extra seriousness standard of the crime but not for other groups.

There has been a lot of misleading statements made about this bill and by far most objections I have seen have been about the bill doing things it does not do.

What the bill "does not do" (mostly) is make sense, and, unless you yourself are a Senator charged with the making of laws, you should not feel derogated by my remarks.

[MaxOverlord]

So what your saying is... if I call a woman a Bitch before back handing her, it is no longer asault it is a hate crime? This is just one more ridiculous thing that will waste tons of money and clog the entire juducial system with so called hate crimes, everytime someone gets there ass beat or gets looked at funny.



Somebody else sounds just like me in here!!
Your brain is wonderful SHUVT!!