Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

  1. #31
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,483

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I see the pro in it.
    What is the pro in it for society?

    I dont see it.

    Outlawing emotions instead of actions is just designed to fail.


    A crime is a crime.

    I dont care if they did it for one stupid reason or another.
    Thank you

  2. #32
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Congress extends hate crime protections to gays - Yahoo! News



    I was surprised to not see a post on this yet. It is an easy target, and for good reason. First, hate crime laws should go away, not be expanded...and as any one who knows my posts knows I am well in favor of gay rights, but this is just wrong.

    Further, to add this to a defense spending bill is the kind of things we as democrats should oppose. It is and was wrong when republicans did it, it is wrong when we do it. If you can't pass a bill, you can't pass it. Using workarounds to get something through is just wrong.
    I hate thanking you for anything, you know that don't you?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #33
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,353
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I hate thanking you for anything, you know that don't you?
    Don't worry, it works both ways and I had to do it today too.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #34
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Don't worry, it works both ways and I had to do it today too.
    Where, I got to see this?????
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Furthermore, as noted above, the federal hate crime law does not include a mandatory minimum, so I don't see how it will "ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing." The sentencing guidelines provide for a 3 level increase, which is minimal.
    Yes... so if a judge or jury gives meager time for a the crime, the three fold rule of hate crime ensures a standard sentence; if the jury keeps the three fold law in mind, they can do this on purpose in order to make it en par with a standard assault sentence.

    Just in case you don't know what I mean:

    Case A: The social dynamic of a particular court case means the jury favors the gay basher and gives a one year sentence. The hate crime law extends it to three years.

    Case B: The jury thinks a hate crime has been committed but does not believe the particularly incident is all that severe. To protect the criminal from a sentence too harsh, they default to the lesser possible sentence so that when the three fold rule kicks in, the time served is not enormous.

    Same situations apply if the judge does the sentencing, or whoever else. Either way, sentence is assured, but there are still ways to balance it out based on perceived severity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Again, this law does not compel anyone to do anything, especially the police. All this law does is offer prosecutors the option to add a more serious charge in cases of "hate crimes." If you're worried about police officers ignoring these crimes, you should know that this law will absolutely not address that in any way, shape or form.
    I admit to my mistake then. I didn't realize that's how it worked. Nonetheless, if the crime committed is particularly heinous, I don't see a problem with the prosecutor going the hate crime route.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The fact that something is bad doesn't mean that the solution is to pass overbroad and ill-defined laws criminalizing a wide range of behavior.
    Can you give me examples to demonstrate what you're talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Do you actually think that this is how it will work?

    "Hey, Tony, you want to go out and beat some black guys with a pipe?"

    "Nah man, I would have done it last week because we would have probably only been charged with assault/attempted murder/etc. in state court and spend 7-11 years in prison, but they passed this new hate crime law. Now we might get charged in federal court and spend 8-12 years in prison."

    "Damn bro, I didn't know that. Good point. Let's just stay home and watch the Jets."
    It's less about impacting the criminals, and more about addressing the greater social effects of hate crimes. More that just the victim is affected, but the whole community that shares their status. This is why I'm in favor of it for now, because gays are not fully accepted by society. I want to know that bashers got what they deserved, instead of getting off on stupid technicalities. The social security of gays in society needs reinforcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So would a law providing for the death penalty for racism, but that wouldn't be a good law either.
    I would not be in favor of the death penalty for racism.

  6. #36
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,353
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Where, I got to see this?????
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1058324744

    Explanation further into the thread.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #37
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Yes... so if a judge or jury gives meager time for a the crime, the three fold rule of hate crime ensures a standard sentence; if the jury keeps the three fold law in mind, they can do this on purpose in order to make it en par with a standard assault sentence.
    To clarify, it's a three-level increase in the sentence, not a three-fold increase. Here's the federal sentencing table:



    This means that someone whose crime would otherwise be at level 31 would now be at level 34, earning them 151-188 months instead of 108-135 months.

    Just in case you don't know what I mean:

    Case A: The social dynamic of a particular court case means the jury favors the gay basher and gives a one year sentence. The hate crime law extends it to three years.

    Case B: The jury thinks a hate crime has been committed but does not believe the particularly incident is all that severe. To protect the criminal from a sentence too harsh, they default to the lesser possible sentence so that when the three fold rule kicks in, the time served is not enormous.

    Same situations apply if the judge does the sentencing, or whoever else. Either way, sentence is assured, but there are still ways to balance it out based on perceived severity.
    Again, this wouldn't address this problem in any way, except on the margins. Juries are not involved in sentencing - they merely issue a verdict as to guilt. They have no idea of how the sentencing process works, or of what category the defendant will fall in. The judge is the person who makes that determination, based on a rigid set of guidelines that provide very little leeway. It would take a herculean effort on the part of an exceptionally bigoted judge to give lighter sentences to people who were racists/bigots, and even then, it would be unlikely to work.

    I admit to my mistake then. I didn't realize that's how it worked. Nonetheless, if the crime committed is particularly heinous, I don't see a problem with the prosecutor going the hate crime route.
    The problem is that there's no "heinous" requirement in the law. It can be charged wherever the prosecutor wants it to be charged.

    Can you give me examples to demonstrate what you're talking about?
    From above:

    In contrast, the question of whether a crime qualifies as a hate crime is far less concrete. Look at the examples cited above.

    Which of these do you think are hate crimes?:

    1) Guy uses a gay chatroom to find someone to rob because he thinks gay people will be easy to lure to the place of robbery and to overpower

    2) Guy robs a woman because women are less likely to fight back than men

    3) Guy robs an old person because old people are less likely to fight back

    4) Guy rapes a woman because he wants to rape a woman, not a man

    Every one of these people falls within the meaning of the hate crime statute. As a result, it gives prosecutors almost unlimited leeway to use that additional leverage to force people to plea to more serious charges, whether or not they actually committed what you or I would consider a "hate crime."

    It's less about impacting the criminals, and more about addressing the greater social effects of hate crimes. More that just the victim is affected, but the whole community that shares their status. This is why I'm in favor of it for now, because gays are not fully accepted by society. I want to know that bashers got what they deserved, instead of getting off on stupid technicalities. The social security of gays in society needs reinforcement.
    Again, how is the security of the community reinforced if there is no deterrent effect? The primary impact of this change will be to give prosecutors additional leverage against any and all defendants who could conceivably have done something that society considers prejudiced. As every federal criminal statute from mail fraud to extortion has proven, federal prosecutors will always go farther than the law intended in its application. We need to be reigning in these expansions of power, not adding to them.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #38
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    I'll just repost my 2 cents from a previous thread.

    "Bad legislation. It places a group of citizens above the rest, and that violates equal protection under the law. This could have the opposite affect on the people it is meant to protect because it may create animosity toward gays for getting special treatment.

    There are already enough laws that protect every citizen, another that singles out a group of people for a single trait is unnecessary."

    I have a serious dislike for hate-crime legislation. How can a group of people cry for equality and then support a law that places them above the rest? It makes no sense to me.
    "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." -Ronald Reagan

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Hate crime laws mostly ensure a standard sentence. If a person is found guilty of an assault against a homosexual, then the hate crime law ensures that a minimum sentence is carried out. Judicial rulings can sometimes be biased in favor of the criminal in conservative areas where the jury, DA, or even the judge can be homophobic.



    That has not been my experience with police officers anywhere. Gays can be targets for harassment by the police, and when they go to the police to report crimes they are sometimes ignored or even ridiculed as having deserved it. I thankfully have not experienced this but I have friends who have... and that's in Toronto or Vancouver, both of which are considered far more liberal than most American places.



    If the person is found innocent then it won't matter who they allegedly attacked. If they are found guilty and the victim is a homosexual, then the hate crime law ensures that the justice system can't minimize the sentence out of homophobia.

    I think for now this kind of law is needed while society transitions into accepting homosexuality. Eventually the laws should be struck down. And no, society does not accept homosexuals universally. I won't even cater to that perception. Even as a white collar professional, I still can't go into a random bar with my boyfriend without getting attitude from people.

    The justice system is even further behind the public attitude as the majority of its roles are still filled by people from the baby boomer era.
    Thank you.

    There are a law of misconception about what hate crimes legislation is and how it works. Thank you for putting the information out there for people to read.

    Still, some will continue to believe it's all about policing 'thoughts' or attitudes. It's about empowering federal law enforcement to enforce the constitution. Imagine that.

    You can think whatever you want and your attitude can be as totally f-ed up as Fred Phelps, but when you tie someone to a fence and beat them to death because of that particular attitude... You don't belong in free society.

  10. #40
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Thank you.

    There are a law of misconception about what hate crimes legislation is and how it works. Thank you for putting the information out there for people to read.

    Still, some will continue to believe it's all about policing 'thoughts' or attitudes.
    A person who kills a black person because he just happens to be robbing him is (theoretically) not guilty of a hate crime and cannot be prosecuted in federal court. A person who kills a black person because he hates black people and likes to rob them is guilty of a hate crime and can be prosecuted in federal court.

    What is different between the two criminals other than their "thoughts or attitudes"?

    It's about empowering federal law enforcement to enforce the constitution. Imagine that.
    Why do you think that federal criminal law is incredibly limited?

    You can think whatever you want and your attitude can be as totally f-ed up as Fred Phelps, but when you tie someone to a fence and beat them to death because of that particular attitude... You don't belong in free society.
    You seem to be operating under the misconception that without this law, the people who commit these crimes cannot be punished. Last I checked, murder is still illegal in all 50 states.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •