home

House Passes Hate Crime Legislation, Bush Signals Veto

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:26:10 PM EST
Tags: hate crimes (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm no supporter of federal hate crime legislation. We need to get away from mass federalization of crimes that are better left to the states. I also object to laws that punish thoughts behind the crime in addition to the crime itself.

The penalty for murder is life or death. Sex offense penalties are already sky high. Why make them higher?

Nonetheless, the House of Representatives today passed hate crime legislation. President Bush has signaled he will veto it. Fine by me.

< Please Take the Reader Survey | Rudy: "They Looked In Reagan's Eyes" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Passes Hate Crime Legislation, Bush Signals Veto | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Here are a few stupid question (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Freewill on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    Why do terrorists want to kill us?

    What is behind their motives to kill us?

    Why is a Republican associate like Bush demonstrating his eagerness to Veto this type of bill if he is tough on Terrorism?

    Do we here in America have people that, based upon their position on this or that topic are hounded in the Media as being haters of America and they are also at the same time being portrayed as Terrorists Enablers?

    Why would a bill like this get voted upon by party lines?

    Why would one party, the party that explains that we are not safe from people who hate us and our freedoms oppose a bill that could be a tool to use against terrorists?

    End of stupid questions

    I agree about punishing Thoughts, I don't believe in that. However, Actions speak louder than Thoughts. When Actions, based upon an ideology are turned into law breaking Actions isn't it a good idea to understand the motives behind the actions? When Thoughts are broadcasted and are meant to incite hatred reactions towards other tax paying, law abiding, individuals do we tolerate that?

    I'm no lawyer but without some protections are we not allowing law breakers to have an excuse? "I'm a <insert race, ideology, group, religion> and I strongly believe in the supreme inherited rights of my <insert race, ideology, group, religion>. Therefore, it is our rights to exterminate this <insert race, ideology, group, religion> because we are the supreme beings."

    There are too many groups out there that advocate violence upon certain charituristics in society. These groups have money, power, and the tools to spread their propaganda to the masses. Do we now simply stand aside and allow those types to create a mob like hysteria towards others that we don't understand, find unexceptable in our way of living, or blame for the miseries in our lives that we ourselves created in the first place?

    Do we as a Nation that proclaims "Everyone is created equal" and "We are free" do we now simply sit back and watch as selected sections of our Nation become ostricized, ridiculed, refused service, not allowed to participate in a democracy, or even worse have their rights to life taken away from them simply because we are too damn lazy, ignorant and biased to appriciate others differences.


    You some kind of terrist lover? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Why do terrorists want to kill us? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11...

    What is behind their motives to kill us? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11...

    Why is a Republican associate like Bush demonstrating his eagerness to Veto this type of bill if he is tough on Terrorism? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11...

    Do we here in America have people that, based upon their position on this or that topic are hounded in the Media as being haters of America and they are also at the same time being portrayed as Terrorists Enablers? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11...

    Why would a bill like this get voted upon by party lines? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11...

    Besides, they'll come and kill you in your bed.

    Anything else? They hate freedom. 9/11... 9/11... 9/11................................................

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    "I'm no lawyer but without some protections are we not allowing law breakers to have an excuse? "I'm a <insert race, ideology, group, religion> and I strongly believe in the supreme inherited rights of my <insert race, ideology, group, religion>. Therefore, it is our rights to exterminate this <insert race, ideology, group, religion> because we are the supreme beings." "

      As an abstraction, what you say is true, but it skirts the issue here. Other long existing laws provide "protections" (actually criminal laws themselves do not provide "protection" they provide corrective responses to those who violate them  and it is "preventive law enforcement" and "voluntary individual law obeying" that provide real "protection") when people commit THE ACTS involved here.

      The argument against "hate crime laws" is not that these acts should not be punished when the victims are of a certain class, but that the punishment should not vary dependent on the status of the victim. opponents believe the ACTS of the perpetrator should determine the applicable statute not the identity of the victim.

      No one but perhaps a few extreme wackos who oppose such legislation  believe that unprovoked violence against anyone can be legally justified and should not be punished. They just believe that the "traditional" violent crime statutes should be applied as applicable.

    Parent

    I agree in many ways (none / 0) (#42)
    by Freewill on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    that adding laws on top of laws confuses the purpose of the actual law. This post has brought up a topic which I haven't studied up on for a long while. I understand the merits of both side of the argument but where I become afraid is when we leave it upon the individual States to enforce freedom to all Americans.

    Article 14 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    In the wake of the 13 Amendment many Southern States enacted State Laws in order to try and return freed blacks to a more "controllable state" (in their perception) by restricting them from suing and testifying in court. The 14 Amendment however, restricted the states from depriving any U.S. Citizen and countered many of these Southern States Black Laws.

    When we as a Nation, leave it upon the individual states to decide the definition of who is and who is not a U.S. Citizen this becomes a scary situation and history has proven time and time again that injustices will abound!

    IMO, in order to retain one National identity Federal laws should be enacted to protect the 14th Amendment and ensure that every U.S. Citizen has the protections granted by the Constitution. It is the duty of the Federal Government to enforce that line:  

    "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Hate has a way to strip freedoms, take lives, and enslave particular groups in society. Ask the Christians about what the Romans did to them, didn't Hitler use the power of hate to deny the freedoms of selected individuals? Didn't some Southern States try to refuse rights to freed individuals? Who is responsible to ensure this never happens again? Individual States?

    Why I posed the questions in the manor in which I did at the opening of my comment; I posed these questions because I find it odd that Republicans over the decades have out right objected to Hate Crime Laws. Why? What are they afraid of? I find this in light of the events in today's world and the manor in which our Republican leaders have preached their arguments for War, Terrorism, Torture, Invasion of Privacy, Religion, Tough on Defense, Tough on Crime, etc... to contradict many of their previous arguments.

    Those questions (many times referred to as Troll Bate) were posed to understand the Republican mind better. I cast those questions out in order to see who took the bait and to see how they defended their position on Hate Crimes. All to often they preach about being the chosen ones tough enough to protect all American but yet they are the ones who cry the loudest that "the weak Lefties" are hurting them and try to position themselves as martyrs. Go Figure, and they proclaim that they are tough!

    I don't understand their "Cry-Baby" mentality and how that makes them the tough ones in the world today?

    Thank you all for the great thought provoking debates on this issue. And thank you Deconstructionist for your rebuttal because in many ways I completely agree with your position on this topic.

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:35:40 PM EST
    Why do terrorists want to kill us?

    What is behind their motives to kill us?

    The following is from an interview between Peter Arnett, then of CNN and OBL. Note that Peter's question frames the central issue. Would you, the radical Moslem terrorists, be content if the US left??

    OBL's answer is demonstrative of their motives and what drives them.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Now, I know you asked your questions in a snarky jest, but I hope the above would give you just a moments pause on your way to surrender.

    Link

    Parent

    Jim did you not read what this post was about (none / 0) (#41)
    by Freewill on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    and did you not fully read my full comment before you posted?

    I thought the questions would be TROLL BATE and you took it hook, line and sinker. I don't have to worry about you choking on it because it's pretty evident you take bigger things daily!

    Now, why do you so strongly object to Hate Crime Legislation?

    Is terrorism a Hate Crime? A Yes/No answer will suffice Jim

    If you answered NO to the last question then briefly state without derogatory, name calling fallacies, cite your reasons for your answer:

    If you answered YES to the "Is terrorism a Hate Crime" question then again, briefly state without derogatory, name calling fallacies, cite your reasons for the answer:

    I'm only helping you to stay on topic here Jim. You kind of look like a combative person fighting for the wrong issue when you fail to read the entire stories.

    Oh, I forgot, you only take selected lines out of a story and re-create the intent of the message based on your agenda. NEVER MIND!

    btw:
    Props to you for your attempt at trying to associate me as being an OBL sympathizer and the overly simplified "Surrender" tag the republicans spew daily. This should get you bonus points with the Supreme Leader!

    Remember my offer Jim! I highly recommend you for the War Czar position! I'm sure you will serve it well!

    Save the Cheerleader - Save the World!

    Please stay on the topic of the post!

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    Speaking of not fully reading. I guess you missed my last sentence.

    Now, I know you asked your questions in a snarky jest, but I hope the above would give you just a moments pause on your way to surrender.

    But it provided such a perfect way to:

    a. Demonstrate the motives and intentions of the terrorist

    b. Demonstrate that the Left in General, and you in specific, do not take their claims seriously, instead wanting to use the WOT as a political weapon against Bush.

    BTW - Hate Laws and terrorist attacks by radical Moslems are unrelated.

    It is perfectly logical to be against Hate Laws and also be against terrorists.

    So take your snide, juvenile attempt to play word games into a less mature venue. Adults hang out here.

    Parent

    Ditto ;) . IF our justice system (none / 0) (#1)
    by seabos84 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:31:37 PM EST
    was 100%, they could take murderers and rapists down to the local stadium and shoot them in public on Sat at noon, $20 admission, for all I care.

    BUT, our justice system ain't nowhere near 100%,

    and w.t.f is a hate crime?  Suppose I hate fascists ... when is that gonna be a crime?

    if ya punch someone in the mouth or shoot someone, I don't care if you get a steel / concrete cage,

    but they are gonna judge your thoughts?  

    hello?

    I guess they don't want to keep the Thought Police as fiction?

    rmm.

    Something else we agree on. n/t (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:38:55 PM EST


    Mindless hate is criminal... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Aaron on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    ...and when you choose to act out violently as a result of your hatred, you should be held to special standard for that type of motivation.

    I understand the legal objection to hate crime legislation and the possibilities for abuse, but in specific instances I support such federal laws.  Unfortunately I think the entire hate crime movement is a little late. It's too bad we didn't have the federal courts prosecuting hate crimes throughout the first two thirds of the 20th century, because I imagine that it would've cut down on the number of lynchings and other crimes against Black people, Native Americans and various other minorities in this country.  

    Back when state courts were all but ignoring crimes against minorities that were specifically designed to terrorize and instill fear in minority populations, such laws might have made a real difference.  It was a good idea that came just a little bit too late to have a larger impact on our society and in all likelihood would've save an untold number of lives in this country.  If racists in the South had known that they could've come before a federal court after having been acquitted of lynchings someone in some good old boy local court, perhaps they would've thought twice about making a habit of such behavior in the belief that they had nothing to fear from a court system which had been undermined by prejudice and hatred.

    But even today, where we have Latino gang members in Los Angeles murdering innocent African-Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin, and those crimes are intended to intimidate entire populations of people, and bar them from specific areas of United States, perhaps it's a good idea to prosecute these criminals separately, and tack on another 10 or 20 consecutive years to their sentences so that they never get out of prison after having murdered someone with such motivations in mind.

    To some extent, this idea is about enforcing a standard in a society that says we simply will not tolerate this kind of thing any longer, and if you choose to commit these acts and are bold enough to come out and say that your motives were based specifically on racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic or religious beliefs, then we're going to punish you for your motives in addition to the criminal acts themselves.

    I agree it is a separate crime. (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilybart on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:10:41 AM EST
    Attacking a gay person is meant to scare the entire community into hiding.

    Maybe Hate Crime is not the right terminology?

    It is intimidation attemtping to deny a person's civil rights, or the civil rights of a group.

    Parent

    Jer is right on. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:13:39 AM EST

    Judges can already take these factors into consideration at sentencing.  

    The whole purpose of hate crimes legislation is to allow legislators to curry favor with groups that believe they are covered by the act.  

    Lets see, last election that bunch in Milwaukee that slashed tires of vans that were hired to take Rethugs to the polls, not a hate crime!

    Parent

    david neiwert? (none / 0) (#4)
    by selise on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:55:29 AM EST
    read David Neiwert at Orcinus for an alternative view on hate crimes legislation.

    i'm with Jeralyn on most everything else (i want a ban on capital punishment, for example)... but David makes a compeling argument, and - i think he's right.... however, would love to see the two of them debate this issue.

    The Vatican's Position (none / 0) (#5)
    by bernarda on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:54:49 AM EST
    You are about the only progressive blogger I have read who seems to understand the issue. Here is a counter-example of how "hate crime" law could, and probably would, be used.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070502.wvatican0502/BNStory/International/home

    "The Vatican's official newspaper accused an Italian comedian on Wednesday of "terrorism" for criticizing the Pope and warned his rhetoric could fuel a return to 1970s-style political violence.

    In an unusually strongly worded editorial, L'Osservatore Romano said a presenter of a televised May Day rock concert, which is sponsored by Italy's labour unions, had launched "vile attacks" on Pope Benedict in front of an "excitable crowd".

    "This, too, is terrorism. It's terrorism to launch attacks on the Church," it said. "It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man.""

    In other words, criticism of the Pope or the Church might lead to someone attacking a priest or nun and thus be a "hate crime".

    More,

    "The Osservatore said Rivera's monologue came amid growing anti-clericalism in Italy which included graffiti and Internet messages supporting the Red Brigades, the Marxist group involved in political violence particularly in the 1970s.

    "Some people have even twisted (Bagnasco's words) to start an insidious `war', a new season of tension, which is inspiring those who are looking for motives to return to taking up arms," the newspaper said."

    This law will come back to haunt us.

    Wrong. Speech is protected. (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilybart on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:07:48 AM EST
    A hate crime involves a violent attack, not just words. Speech is affirmed in this bill.

    The religious people must want to continue to beat up and murder gays, otherwise, I don't see how this bill affects their abiility to say horrible things about gay people.

    Go ahead religious zealots---say whatever vile thing Jesus says you can say about gay people. Just don't kill them, ok?

    Parent

    Jesus (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peaches on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    never said one vile word against Gay People. Not was he ever motivated by hate.

    I think he would have been quite tolerant of gay people and surely would have been against killing them.

    Not sure what he would have thought about a hate crime bill, though.

    Parent

    Dobson Disagrees (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    I think he would have been quite tolerant of gay people and surely would have been against killing them.

    He said that people following the bible would become criminals if  a gay hate crime law was enacted. At least bible followers would be thought criminals, at most violent psychotic nut cases...... well he stopped at thought crime but we know what he meant.

    Parent

    The Bible (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    requires readers to do some interpretting. There are many contradictions between the New and Old Testament. Whatever Dobson is using to justify his intolerance of Gays most likely does not come from the words of Jesus, unless he is using an extremely liberal interpretation of Jesus's words and attempting to interpretting him to be saying exactly the opposite of what he intended to say. I suspect Dobson is using some verses from the Old Testament to justify his views.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    requires readers to do some interpretting.

    Yes, and that's where the problems start..

    ;-)

    Parent

    Chicken or the Egg? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    Or did it start with the writers?

    hmm, another conversation while tipping back a few? ;)

    Parent

    Gannon/Guckert Cured? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    Well Dobson's magic cure for man on man love must have worked for Gannon/Guckert. He is now the spokesman for the International Bible Reading Association. Hope no one assaults him now, because it could be prosecuted as a religious hate crime.

    Organizers put out 600 folding chairs on the lawn -- the spot where presidents are inaugurated -- and set up a huge stage with powerful amplifiers. But at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, not one of the 600 seats was occupied. By 11 a.m., as a woman read a passage from Revelations, attendance had grown -- to four people. Finally, at 1 p.m., 37 of the 600 seats were occupied, though many of those people were tourists eating lunch.
    Where was everybody?
    "This isn't that kind of event," explained Jeff Gannon, spokesman for the host, the International Bible Reading Association.

    think progress

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    Works for me. Make mine a Fat Tire. Bring two, I'm thirsty...

    Do you remember the joke about St. Peter giving the newcomers a tour around heaven.... When they come near one room he shushes the group to say nothing...

    When they are passed the room someone ask's why...

    "Oh," says St. Peter, that's the (insert your favorite group). They think they're the only ones in Heaven and I don't want to hurt their feelings."

    Parent

    The veto is over gays (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilybart on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:04:56 AM EST
    As Andrew Sullivan said yesterday, he is also against hate crimes legislation, BUT if we are going to have it on the books, then excluding gays, the most common target of hate crimes is wrong.

    So the veto is WRONG.

    If Bush thinks the law itself is wrong (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilybart on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:12:24 AM EST
    I have not heard or read that.

    So, Bush has no problem with a Federal Hate Crimes statute, just that gays should not get protection.

    It really is this simple.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:25:24 AM EST
    If Bush thinks the law itself is wrong... I have not heard or read that.

    So, Bush has no problem with a Federal Hate Crimes statute, just that gays should not get protection.

    Well then you're simply not looking in the most obvious place. The reasons are that it is unnecessary, probably unconstitutional, and an intrusion on federalism. No mention of "thought crime." No mention of "teh gay."

    I agree that it is unconstitutional after U.S. v. Morrison.

    Also, the idea that you (and apparently Andrew Sullivan) have that hate crimes statutes are bad, but if we're going to start divying up the loot, the gays better get their share is just plain silly. Hate crime statutes are not improved by simply creating one more special class.

    Parent

    I Call BS (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    If Bush was not just being his regular gay bashing self he would propose to erase all hate crimes from the books. That is not going to happen, and you know it.

    Parent
    Heh. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:13:18 AM EST
    lilybart appeared to care for what reasons the President gives for vetoing the law. I know that you don't care, squeaky.

    And, as I think Glenn Reynolds said, just because gay bashers will like the veto doesn't mean the veto is wrong. Even if Bush were being "his regular gay bashing self," the legislation isn't any less of a violation of the constitution and federalism.

    Parent

    Again more BS (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    A direct question:

    If Bush is against hate crime laws why doesn't he propose to eliminate the ones on the books?

    Both he and you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Parent

    Wha? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    Why do you say I am talking out of both sides of my mouth? I am opposed to existing hate crime laws.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Bush is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Write him a letter.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    And after you point out that he should eliminate the entire category of hate crimes,  don't forget to ask him to affirm to you that he is 100%  in support of equal rights for gays.

    Parent
    Hate crime laws... (none / 0) (#13)
    by TristramShandy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:34:07 AM EST
    are intended to protect people who are attacked specifically because of widespread prejudice against them; they are more likely to be hit, hurt, or killed because of some generalized hatred against their type.  Therefore, these are more vulnerable than the rest of us.  Attacking a member of these groups is, as someone pointed out above, more than just an attack on an individual, it has a dramatic effect on all people of that group.  A black man lynched affects all black people in the area, and, if unpunished or lightly punished, emboldens all other racists to act on their hatred.  

    This is not "Thought Police" stuff:  we already make determinations about a defendant's state of mind.  These determinations distinguish, for example, manslaughter from first-degree murder.  Anybody is free to think whatever they want about a member of these groups; you just aren't allowed to beat or kill them.  Hardly Thought Police.

    Crimes effect everyone. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:51:15 AM EST
    A black man lynched affects all black people in the area...

    It effects everyone.  It is a fiction to think only blacks are fearful of mob justice.  

    Any shopkeeper shot dead effects everyone as well.  Hmmmm, blacks are a big Democrat constituency and shopkeepers are not.  How amazing that one group is covered, and the other not.

    Parent

    What is "hate"? (none / 0) (#16)
    by bernarda on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    You, like lilybart who replied to my post just don't get it.

    "This is not "Thought Police" stuff:  we already make determinations about a defendant's state of mind.  These determinations distinguish, for example, manslaughter from first-degree murder."

    If one plans an agression or a murder, the plan is enough to aggravate his case. You don't need to speculate about the philosophy of the person who made the plan.

    All "hate crime" laws are essentially "thought control" laws. Above I showed just how the religious wingnuts can and undoubtedly will use the law.

    Who knows, if some atheist somewhere attacks a xian, the wingnuts could claim it is because he hates the victim for his religion. How are the courts going to decide between hating the religion and hating the person who practices it?

    Parent

    It is not correct (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:27:47 AM EST
      that in order to be a hate crime, the conduct must be motivated by a desire to intimidate the larger protected class  of which the victim is a member.

      If one attacks a person within whatever classes are protected by a particular "hate cimes" statute, the prosecution need only carry the burden of showing membership in that class was the motive. A person could simply "hate Baptists" and if he beat his Baptist neighbor because the neighbor  was Baptist, the prosecution would not be required to show either that the defendant intended to intimidate Baptists or that any Baptists were intimidated.

      Should a person face more punishment face greater punishment for the same act depending on motive? Reasonable people can disagree, but the concept is not unique to "hate crimes" legislation. Many criminal statutes contain alternate provisions providing varying punishments depending on the purposes motivating the criminal act.

      What is different about "hate crimes" is not the consideration of motive in prescribing punishment but rather the consideration of the victim. Even that is not really "unique" as statutes exist  providing, for example, that violence against children  will be punished more severely than the same level of violence against adults.

      So, "hate crimes" legislation essentially incorporates two fairly common  concepts used to determine punishment-- consideration of motive and consideration of the class in which a victim exists. With, again for example,   the child victim statutes it is not necessary to establish that the crime was committed BECAUSE the victim was a child merely that the victim was a child.

       

    Anybody got a link to the actual (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    bill????

    Reading it might help.

    It's here (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    somewhere.

    Parent
    I's a long bill (none / 0) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    to amend the existing statute, but the key part with respect to this discussion is:
    HR 1592

    **

    Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
    `(a) In General-

    `(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

    `(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

    `(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

    `(i) death results from the offense; or

    `(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

    `(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

    `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
    `(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

    `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

    `(I) death results from the offense; or

    `(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

    link

    Thanks Decon.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    I don't like criminalizing the "because"...who cares whether somebody kills because their dog told them to, their god, or their prejudices.  

    Punish the bodily harm part severely, thats all thats necessary.  

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:57:05 PM EST
    Thanks...

    Parent
    Definitions and uses (none / 0) (#40)
    by bernarda on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:37:55 AM EST
    The law,

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

    The definitions, "(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and"

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000994----000-.html

    Warning, it is rather long and tough slogging.

    Curiously, the word "hate" is not mentioned in the cited section.

    Another curious aspect is,

    "The Commission shall give due consideration to any petition filed by a defendant requesting modification of the guidelines utilized in the sentencing of such defendant, on the basis of changed circumstances unrelated to the defendant, including changes in--

    (1) the community view of the gravity of the offense;

    (2) the public concern generated by the offense; and

    (3) the deterrent effect particular sentences may have on the commission of the offense by others."

    So, the commission can decide based on things "unrelated to the defendant" such as "public concern" and "community view".

    Just how are those determined? By reading the press? Then what about orchestrated press campaigns?

    Furthermore,

    The act piously concludes by saying that free speech under the first amendment is preserved, but in the act,

    "1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

    `(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

    `(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

    `(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

    `(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

    `(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

    That seems to open up fishing expeditions, particularly if the government decides to use racketeering definitions implying collusion between 3 or more people.

    Furthermore, there is a federal grant program which seems to incite the "discovery" of more "hate crimes",

    "(3) APPLICATION-

    (A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

    (B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

    (C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

    (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

    (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

    (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

    (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

    (4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

    (5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period."

    Parent

    Call and Raise you Ten (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn't include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I'll add them. The Republicans' response? Uh, no.

    C & L

    House Passes Hate Crime Legislation, Bush Signals Veto | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment