Matthew Shepard Bill Passes
Thursday evening news -- I'll let the New York Times tell you about it:
But what about the other side? What did they think about it? (As if we didn't know already...)
Good.
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to extend new federal protections to people who are victims of violent crime because of their sex or sexual orientation, bringing the measure close to reality after years of fierce debate.
The 68-to-29 vote sends the legislation to President Obama, who has said he supports it.
The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.
“Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. “For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.”
Mr. Leahy sponsored the hate-crimes amendment to the military bill and called its passage a worthy tribute to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who first introduced hate-crimes legislation in the Senate more than a decade ago. Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure
But what about the other side? What did they think about it? (As if we didn't know already...)
Opponents argued to no avail that the new measure was unnecessary in view of existing laws and might interfere with local law enforcement agencies. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible. “That’s why they are already illegal,” Mr. DeMint said, asserting that the new law was a dangerous, even “Orwellian” step toward “thought crime.”
Ten Republicans voted for the hate-crimes measure. The only Democrat to oppose it was Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said he could not vote for the current bill “because it does nothing to bring our open-ended and disproportionate military commitment in Afghanistan to an end and/or to ensure that our troops are safely and expeditiously redeployed from Iraq.” The Senate action came two weeks after the House approved the measure, 281 to 146, and would give the federal government the authority to prosecute violent, antigay crimes when local authorities failed to.
The measure would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes, and it would allow the agency to assist in investigations and prosecutions if local agencies requested help.
Federal protections for people who are victims of violent crime because of their sexual orientation have been sought for more than a decade, at least since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.
Good.
posted by JimK at 9:43 PM
51 Comments:
"68-to-29 vote"
It must be a sad day in fringe-land when republicans sanction their pet-hatred for the purpose of national security.
And now to play Sociopathanon for a moment:
"The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill,"
But Jim, that means it doesn’t count because it’s not the will of the tyranny of the majority.
“Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation,” Senetor Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont…
But Jim, life is fear. People who are singled out to feel fear, shouldn’t also then be singled out to be protected from it. It's a double whammy!
tribute to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy
But Jim...But Jim...But Jim...But Jim...
Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible.
“That’s why they are already illegal,”…asserting that the new law was a…step toward “thought crime.”
But Jim, "already illegal" first, second, and third degree murders should all be treated the same. Motivation or “thought” in regard to crime should never be considered.
"Ten Republicans voted for the hate-crimes measure."
Forced to. Forced to because they didn’t have the spine that Democrat Russ Feingold had to bring attention to “…our open-ended and disproportionate military commitment in Afghanistan to an end and/or to ensure that our troops are safely and expeditiously redeployed from Iraq.”
And further forced to because of the competitive public health care option that has bankrupted the health care providers that would provide these senators with the quality spine care they deserve.
---
“The measure would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes, and it would allow the agency to assist in investigations and prosecutions if local agencies requested help.”
Emproph: As a friend once said:
“In an ideal world, hate crime legislation would be redundant, because crime would be investigated and prosecuted with an even hand.
The need for hate crimes legislation, in reality, comes from the follow-up crimes of police and justice officials exercising their power in a biased manner by determining that certain crimes against certain people are not worth their effort.”
"hate" crimes laws give more protection to some than others
now, if criminals are deciding who to target for a crime, they will go after straights before gays because will have less penalty attached to victimizing the former
eventually, this will be recognized and hate crime laws declared unconstitutional
they violate the idea of equal protection under the law
"WASHINGTON (Oct. 22) -- The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.
The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent believe there is scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.
Only about a third, or 36 percent of the poll respondents feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase.
"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science.
Republicans in general have grown even more steadfast in their opposition. A majority — 57 percent — now say there is no hard evidence of global warming, according to the poll.
Other results of the survey also suggest that it will be tough politically to enact a law limiting emissions of global warming pollution."
“if criminals are deciding who to target for a crime, they will go after straights before gays because will have less penalty attached to victimizing the former”
Is that how you determine which demographic to commit a crime against?
"Is that how you determine which demographic to commit a crime against?"
nah, I go after rich people
5 million is a pittance for this purpose. Token money.
zero would be better
D.C. ia eliminating their gay crimes task force
someone should ask them why
Because thanks to the Bush recession, there's not enough money to fund it anymore.
come off it
trillion dollars of stimulus
what was lost was not forsaken, just borrowed
D.C. dropped because it's a waste of money
the other shoe has dropped and our new socialist administration is revealing itself more clearly:
"The Federal Reserve joined the Treasury Department on Thursday in imposing new limits on executive pay, extending the government's control over compensation at taxpayer-owned companies to institutions that are merely government regulated.
The restrictions were the latest in more than a year's worth of government intervention in matters once considered inviolable aspects of the country's free-market economy and represent a signal moment in the history of the American economic experiment.
After years of setting minimum wages, the government is now telling some companies how they should structure pay for those who run them.
The actions Thursday put the United States more in line with European governments. France and Germany, in particular, have pressed for international standards to limit executive pay, a move that the United States and Britain have resisted.
At Treasury, President Obama's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, announced sharp cuts in pay for 175 top executives at seven big banks and automakers that received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal bailout money during the financial crisis. The new structures reduced the cash salary paid to some executives by 90 percent and tied more compensation to long-term stock awards."
another czar
there will be hell to pay at the polls in November 2010
Americans will take their country back
a few weeks ago, during the Democrat health care propaganda blitz, there were several articles decrying how horrid the phenomenom of anonymous blog posting was
now, the tide is turning
today's Post, page C1, has an article about how the anonymous blogger is leading a renaissance of humor in America
a sample:
"Erin Ryan has more than a thousand followers on the popular femblog Jezebel.com, which would be a lot for anyone on the Internet but is really a lot considering that she's not one of the site's bloggers; she's merely one of the site's anonymous commenters, responding to posts with dry, breezy one-liners that one reads and thinks: "Withering."
Reprinting them here would be utterly pointless -- things taken out of context and preceded with "This is hysterical!" never, ever translate. Suffice it to say, 1,000 random people like Ryan's stuff, and the blogosphere isn't known for its charity.
"I've definitely gotten better at knowing what works," says Ryan, whose day job is in finance. In the beginning she was all over the place. "Now my sense of humor is sharper and to the point." She agonizes over sentence construction and word choice; she hears from old friends who say, "I didn't remember you as so witty!"
Is the internet making us witty?"
Now why would Anon skip this line between the last two paragraphs?
"...she hears from old friends who say, "I didn't remember you as so witty!"
The Internet is making us lots of things -- attention suckers, drama queens, Nosey Parkers, stupid.
Is it also making us witty? ...
Maybe Ryan has a following of 1000 fans because she sticks to "dry, breezy one-liners" and "agonizes over sentence construction and word choice" instead of cutting and pasting unattributed right wing crap.
"Now why would Anon skip this line between the last two paragraphs?"
to give you something to do, of course
"Maybe Ryan has a following of 1000 fans because she sticks to "dry, breezy one-liners" and "agonizes over sentence construction and word choice" instead of cutting and pasting unattributed right wing crap."
oh, crap is a subjective metaphor
but things look worse for anti-family socialists every day
let's face it- it's the one-liners that so anger the riff-raff here, not the pasting of commentary
here's some commentary that will be thought of as right-wing crap by many TTFers:
"WASHINGTON -- Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes' bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."
Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox."
Never before has an administration singled out a news organization for intimidation.
Coming after the Baucus threats against Humana, this is scary.
Socialism becomes communism stealthily.
America is waking up.
bad time to be a Dem:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a “robust public option” as part of a national overhaul of health care."
story in the Post and commentary in the editorial pages today about how Obama has screwed up his first real crisis- the flu epidemic
it's all downhill from here, baby!
Now our President has to put his money where I votes are and sign the bill. I had heard there was an indication of a veto because of inclusion of a bomber program the President didn't like. Is it still there? Has anyone heard?
rrjr
he's thinking of using that excuse, Robirt, but the truth is, he doesn't like gays
he never has and now he's getting sick of their whining
Fox News has a story on PFOX-GAG's claim that libraries ban 'ex-gay' books: Fox's story about PFOX's complaint of book-banning
They appear to have interviewed our dear Regina, whom they say has an ex-gay cousin and a gay son (I'd heard of the latter, but not the former) at some length, mentioning that PFOX-GAG tried to donate books to Fairfax, Arlington and Montgomery Schools, but were turned down (it's worth noting that all of those school systems say they did not shelve the books because there were no existing reviews by reputable journals or reviewers of children's books or library materials, not because of content).
Fox also brings up PFOX-GAG's suit against MoCo schools about the curriculum, though Fox News gets the details wrong, and brings up Lambda Legal and PFLAG, which, to my knowledge, were not parties to the suit.
PFOX:GAG::FOX:??
Looking at the PFOX-GAG website, they have a brief whining press release about this, and another one putting down my friend Kevin Jennings.
I think I will call my mother and tell her I love her.
Obama took our money, used our volunteer hours, and asked for our votes. He owes us. Then again, so did George Bush, Jr.
maybe he'll give you a refund
"those school systems say they did not shelve the books because there were no existing reviews by reputable journals or reviewers of children's books or library materials, not because of content"
anybody believe this NEA crap?
"Obama took our money, used our volunteer hours, and asked for our votes. He owes us."
SUCKER!!!!!!!
if hate crimes legislation attack free speech then why are those pushing against this law not trying to eliminate hate crimes legislation in the cases of religion and race?
if hate crimes legislation don't violate free speech then why can't we get a law that gives extra penalties to anyone who commits a crime against an anonymous blogger?
Anon postulated:
“"hate" crimes laws give more protection to some than others
now, if criminals are deciding who to target for a crime, they will go after straights before gays because will have less penalty attached to victimizing the former
eventually, this will be recognized and hate crime laws declared unconstitutional
they violate the idea of equal protection under the law”
Given that hate crimes legislation has been in force since *1965*, if we follow the above line of reasoning, one would expect that crosses would only be burned on the lawns of white people,
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/19/Burned-cross-found-on-black-familys-lawn/UPI-69451250702644/ (Aug. 18, *2009*)
and old white supremacists would shoot random victims on the street rather than a black cop protecting the Jewish Holocaust Museum:
http://newsone.com/nation/black-guard-dies-in-holocaust-museum-shooting/ (June 11, *2009*)
It has never worked out this way. Once again, reality entirely fails to match your conjecture.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Sinthia,
I'm an anonymous blogger and there are no hate crimes laws protecting me.
How could that be in this land of equality?
"some self-ordained
professor's tongue
too serious to fool
spouted out
that liberty
is just equality in school
equality
I spoke the word
as if a wedding vow
ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that
now"
further:
"My guard
stood hard
when abstract threats
too noble to neglect
deceived me
into thinking
I had something to protect
good and bad
I defined these terms
quite clear
no doubt somehow
ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that
now"
Anon complained:
“I'm an anonymous blogger and there are no hate crimes laws protecting me.”
I’m sorry you feel left out. Here are some suggestions for you to go about redressing this terrible grievance.
Find evidence of consistent violence and discrimination against anonymous bloggers, present it to your legislatures at the local, state and federal levels, and organize a grassroots campaign to protect anonymous bloggers from the terrible violence that they suffer from. Pictures and news stories, especially of anonymi who have been assaulted or even murdered for their blogging will do a lot to help your cause. Keep in mind though, it’s a long, slow process, so don’t expect results overnight.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Why don't we have the police research the characteristics of various victims and pass special laws for each category, adding extra penalties for each?
I guess it would be easier to act like a nut and put on a dress.
Why can't we get this for people who act like jerks?
There is definitely a lot of violence and discrimination against them.
Or maybe we could just enforce the law regardless of the perpetrators fellings about his victim.
Y'know, I do like swinging by the comments section here from time to time, to read the anonimii's bleating posts. A guilty pleasure, I'll admit, akin to picking at a scab (I really shouldn't, and let the wound heal, so to speak...)
Since the passage of the defense authorization bill with the appended Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act appended, I've noticed that the bleatings in other dark corners of the blogosphere haven't been all that much amped up from before the act was passed.
It's the same rhetoric, the same pass-around talking points built on gut feelings which don't stand up to research, and at the same volume level. Where's the start of CWII?
Gov't springs for older LGBT population
The Obama administration plans to set up "the nation's first national resource center" for older homosexual, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday announced in a press release that the new Resource Center for LGBT Elders "will provide information, assistance, and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services." The Administration on Aging will be awarding a Resource Center grant of $250,000 per year.
The Human Rights Campaign -- the nation's largest pro-homosexual lobby group -- has applauded creation of the Resource Center, claiming LGBT elders "face significant discrimination from senior care providers."
What a way to isolate, and segregate a specific group of people! I’m sure the norm will be happy not to share facilities with this group of people, especially transgender ones.
let's build a planned community for all gays up the far northern Canada
looks like President Van Winkle has awoken from his nap:
"ATLANTA (Oct. 24) - President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency and empowered his health secretary to suspend federal requirements and speed treatment for thousands of infected people.
The declaration that Obama signed late Friday authorized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to bypass federal rules so health officials can respond more quickly to the outbreak, which has killed more than 1,000 people in the United States."
I know you hate it anonymous, but looking after the needs of lgbt senior citizens is appropriate.
When a specific group has a need, you address that group. BTW i find it interesting that no one has addressed the fact that the existence of lgbt seniors rebuts the inaccurate religious right talking point of "gays have a short lifespan."
I've always been against hate crime laws. Hate crime laws should be abolished for all groups.
If someone hits me 10 times because I'm Catholic, and another person hits my friend 10 times because he wants my friend's money, why in the world should the punishment be greater or lesser for either person?
"When a specific group has a need, you address that group"
All groups have needs
the government's job is not to fulfill all needs
it's certainly not to favor one person's needs over another
go start an all-gay country on an iceberg somewhere
To "dissed TTF"
In the words of a popular GLBT chant that has been around for many years...and is still repeated to irk you and yours: "We're queer, we're here - get used to it!"
You haven't the vaguest idea of what this country stands for, but I'll tell you what it doesn't stand for - and that is the hatred and bigotry you exhibit. You are pathetic!
Citizen
it's not hatred to say you don't deserve special protection not afforded everyone else
your hyperbole is always your downfall
yeah, you're here
so what
there have always been homosexuals
they've always blended in fine
take a tip: go back in the closet
Anon suggested:
“Why don't we have the police research the characteristics of various victims and pass special laws for each category, adding extra penalties for each?”
That might be helpful. Personally I have often wondered what would happen if perpetrators of crime were subjected to the exact same violence that their victims were. I realize that there are numerous ethical issues with this, but if criminals new that whatever they did would be done them, I wonder if they would reconsider their actions.
Anon mused:
“I guess it would be easier to act like a nut and put on a dress.”
While I’ve always enjoyed the comedic styling of Judy Tenuta, I fail to see the connection to improving criminal law. There seems to be a non-sequitor here. You’ll have to explain it for me.
Anon asked:
“Why can't we get this for people who act like jerks?”
No body says you can’t.
Anon then asserted:
“There is definitely a lot of violence and discrimination against them.”
Here are some suggestions for you to go about redressing this terrible grievance against you:
Find evidence of consistent violence and discrimination against jerks, present it to your legislatures at the local, state and federal levels, and organize a grassroots campaign to protect jerks from the terrible violence that they suffer from. Pictures and news stories, especially of jerks who have been assaulted or even murdered for their jerkitude will do a lot to help your cause. Keep in mind though, it’s a long, slow process, so don’t expect results overnight.
Anon then suggested:
“Or maybe we could just enforce the law regardless of the perpetrators fellings (sic) about his victim.”
The US court system has a long history of trying to discern the motives and circumstances behind a particular crime and mete out the appropriate punishment. That’s why we have “murder in the first degree” or “second degree” or “manslaughter” etc. I don’t think lawyers really want to give this up. I think you’ll have an uphill battle on this one.
Citizen noted:
"We're queer, we're here - get used to it!"
Which reminds me that the second half of my National Equality March video is now up for your viewing pleasure. I hope you enjoy it.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
“I've always been against hate crime laws. Hate crime laws should be abolished for all groups.
If someone hits me 10 times because I'm Catholic, and another person hits my friend 10 times because he wants my friend's money, why in the world should the punishment be greater or lesser for either person?”
From my understanding, the difference between the degrees of murder are the degrees of intention:
-First degree murder is determined to be something that was clearly “thought” out.
-Third degree murder is determined to be an impetuous decision, or “thought,” made in the heat of the moment.
A person who does not see crime as harmful (1st degree), is more dangerous than a “criminal” who does indeed understand crime to be harmful (3rd degree).
The punishment they receive should be based on the danger they pose. And the only way to determine that, is to determine intent, or "thought."
Punishment is the result of justice. and as I quoted in the second comment in this thread:
“The need for hate crimes legislation, in reality, comes from the follow-up crimes of police and justice officials exercising their power in a biased manner by determining that certain crimes against certain people are not worth their effort.”
---
Back to your point:
"If someone hits me 10 times because I'm Catholic, and another person hits my friend 10 times because he wants my friend's money, why in the world should the punishment be greater or lesser for either person?"
Now, if you and your friend decide to go to your local VIRULENTLY ANTI-CATHOLIC police department to report your assaults, do you think you will be treated fairly and with justice?
“go start an all-gay country on an iceberg somewhere”
Ok, but do you really want all your movies, songs, painting and poems to be based on an iceberg setting?
"Personally I have often wondered what would happen if perpetrators of crime were subjected to the exact same violence that their victims were. I realize that there are numerous ethical issues with this, but if criminals new that whatever they did would be done them, I wonder if they would reconsider their actions.
Cynthia, here's one solution along those lines.
From what I've read on the subject, the anti-crime effectiveness of this program is profound, but prisons/laws will not allow it.
"Personally I have often wondered what would happen if perpetrators of crime were subjected to the exact same violence that their victims were. I realize that there are numerous ethical issues with this, but if criminals new that whatever they did would be done them, I wonder if they would reconsider their actions."
So you endorse "an eye for an eye" policy?
Bottom line is: is it worse to shoot someone because they're gay than it is because you want their money?
I think the crimes are equivalent.
Emproph,
If I were Catholic, got assaulted, and went to a virulently anti-Catholic police department, you ask whether I'd get fair treatment. This begs the question...how does a "hate crimes" law change this problem? If the establishment isn't going to help me to get a fair trail without a hate crimes law, how is it going to help me to get it with a hate crimes law? A bigoted police department is a completely urelated problem.
Regarding first, second and third degree motives...these motives determine the purposefulness of a crime. Did someone purposefully hit a person, or was it an accident? This seems very relevant to the question of justice.
Hate crimes legislation kicks in at the time of doling out punishment. Yes, the person purposefully hit me 10 times, so we'll call that a first-degree crime. Now, comes the punishment and, under a hate crimes law, we're trying to decide-- did the person hit me because I was Catholic or because he didn't like the way I was dressed?
Once we've determined that it's first degree hitting -- why should the person who was hit because he was Catholic receive more justice than the person who was hit for any other reason?
If a man rapes me because he hates Catholics and I'm Catholic, and a man rapes my friend because she just happened to be there at the wrong moment -- why is it fair that my rapist would get more time in jail than her rapist? If I were my friend, I'd be furious! My rapist would get 20 years in jail, while she has to worry about hers getting out in five years.
It makes no sense on any level.
Fess up, Anonymous...you just hate GLBT people. Your "indignation" about the purpose of hate crimes just sublimates your own bigotry and lack of Christian charity.
Get thee to a Church!
another redefinition of a word:
"hate"
the state of not favoring special privileges for a group defined by their desires and behaviors
Anon asserted:
“If a man rapes me because he hates Catholics and I'm Catholic, and a man rapes my friend because she just happened to be there at the wrong moment -- why is it fair that my rapist would get more time in jail than her rapist? If I were my friend, I'd be furious! My rapist would get 20 years in jail, while she has to worry about hers getting out in five years.
It makes no sense on any level.”
On one level I agree. But the problem lies in a long history of misogyny in western culture, not in the definition of a hate crime. Our society is nearly numb with to the fact that more than 600 women every day are raped in the U.S. I don’t see how one can consider this NOT to be a hate crime against women.
There are a number of people that have argued that rape should be considered a hate crime, but it hasn’t picked up much traction in male dominated legislatures.
Laura Goode brings up many interesting points in her blog on the topic “Rape Is A Hate Crime”:
http://ethnoblog.newamericamedia.org/2009/10/rape-is-a-hate-crime.php
Peace,
Cynthia
since all rape is a hate crime, what difference does it make?
Men get raped,too, Cynthia.
Men get raped,too
Not according to the FBI:
Definition
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Data collection
The UCR Program counts one offense for each female victim of a forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, or assault with intent to rape, regardless of the victim’s age. A rape by force involving a female victim and a familial offender is counted as a forcible rape and not an act of incest. All other crimes of a sexual nature are considered to be Part II offenses; as such, the UCR Program collects only arrest data for those crimes. The offense of statutory rape, in which no force is used but the female victim is under the age of consent, is included in the arrest total for the sex offenses category. Sexual attacks on males are counted as aggravated assaults or sex offenses, depending on the circumstances and the extent of any injuries.
“So you endorse "an eye for an eye" policy?”
An iceberg “eye for an eye” policy.
“If the establishment isn't going to help me to get a fair trail without a hate crimes law, how is it going to help me to get it with a hate crimes law? A bigoted police department is a completely urelated problem.”
To my knowledge, that’s the entire point of hate-crime legislation. If you don’t get justice from your local judicial system, you have the additional opportunity to get the government involved--investigate the crime, as opposed to your friend who’s crime has already been solved.
That’s how hate-crime legislation would help you get a fair trial---the facts would have been sought out and recorded. (at least in theory).
Anon: “Regarding first, second and third degree motives...these motives determine the purposefulness of a crime. Did someone purposefully hit a person, or was it an accident? This seems very relevant to the question of justice.”
Emproph -Third degree murder is determined to be an impetuous decision, or “thought,” made in the heat of the moment.
An accident, in principle, is something one has no control over, as opposed to the decision making process that has to be made before murdering another human being. Just fyi.
“Hate crimes legislation kicks in at the time of doling out punishment.”
So if it didn’t concern punishing, and only “kicked in” at the time of investigation, would you then support it?
“why should the person who was hit because he was Catholic receive more justice”
Again, that’s the entire purpose of hate crime legislation, not to bestow “more” justice, but to help ensure equal justice.
“another redefinition of a word:
"hate"
the state of not favoring special privileges for a group defined by their desires and behaviors”
Defining a group as nothing more than “desires and behaviors” IS hate.
Post a Comment
<< Home