• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

The existence of the law does not force the prosecutor to bring the charge, nor does it force the jury to convict. The only way it could possibly have the effect you're seeking is if the judge is a terrible bigot and the hate crime law imposes a mandatory minimum higher than the judge would otherwise have imposed. Due to the vast authority sentencing judges have and the fact that this would only apply in federal courts, this is an absolute non-issue. These are federal judges - not some backwoods town justice in Alabama.

Not every state has minimum sentencing for certain crimes. You're correct, it doesn't ensure that someone is charged or convicted, but it does ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing, usually. This prevents systemic bias based on homophobia, and I think it's proper, at least for now. I adamantly believe that victims who are minorities still require protection in the justice system.

Even though it doesn't guarantee a charge, a hate crime garners more attention from the police by virtue of the law alone. It compels authority to not ignore cases where the victim is a minority, which does still happen no matter what people choose to believe.

The police officers have absolutely no involvement in deciding whether or not to bring the charges, so whether they're bigoted or not has no impact on the eventual outcome of the case.

No but it spreads awareness and compels them to act in most cases. Also, I subscribe to the idea that crimes motivated by hate of a group disempowers the whole group that the victim is part of. It is more damaging to a group that is still trying to fight for equality. I'm not even American, and the tale of Matthew Shepard affected me. It sets a standard for criminals to think twice before they attack someone based on their sexual orientation, race, etc... and yes, I include white people in this, because there is racial crime against them too.

Except the fact that this comes with heaver penalties may induce otherwise innocent people (innocent of the hate crime, at least) to plea to a lesser charge.

I agree, but for all its flaws, I think it is a positive step for a society which is in transition. Justice is rarely perfect, hate crime or not. It helps minority groups to feel more secure in who they are and their struggle for equality.

And again, this is absolutely not an issue with federal judges to the degree that we need a wholesale revision of the laws and a significant increase in prosecutorial power.

If Federal judges are more astute then they'll be able to determine more readily what is and isn't a hate crime.
 
Last edited:
Any violent crime will "terrify" some community. If it happens in a neighborhood, those people will be terrified that is could happen in their community. Maybe the perp chose that neighborhood specifically.
If I happen to be the victim of a crime, I don't want the perpetrator to receive a lesser sentence than other perps than commit the same crime on a person of a minority group. That is not providing equal justice to all victims.

Yes, but the murderer did not intend on frightening that community. It's not his strategy or plan. Furthermore, hate crimes are not measured by how scared populations get (though that is a warning sign), but rather on cues given by the murderer himself -- cues that show his intent is to terrorize a group of people into some behavior contrary to their interests.

The cues are the essential thing. If people get scared when there are no cues, then they are being irrational and the murderer can't be held responsible for their terror. Whatever his crime, nothing he did indicates they ought to have been especially afraid. If the cues are present, however, then their fright is justified (since they are all potentially targets to the exclusion of all other types) and it makes sense for the murderer to incur additional penalties.

Secondly, it is providing equal justice. Equality is about proportionality, not being identical. People are punished according what they deserve, and if a person is performing murder with the intended effect of terrorizing a particular group of people, then he should be brought to terms for that. No different than terrorism, except not directed toward a state, necessarily.
 
Last edited:
I'm not against hate crime legislation...nor am I for it. I see the pro in it and the con in it. So honestly I don't care about this part of the discussion.

What I'm more concerned about is the fact that they rammed this bit of legislation through in a bill that basically HAD to pass. A bill that had pretty much absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes. But had more to do with the Afghanistan war.

What will they pass next in the same manner? Sorry but when they do this kind of thing it just makes me distrust them more than I already do. And makes me think about joining some militia in Idaho or Montana.
 
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.

They should repeal all hate-crime legislation in toto.
 
No reason to object to prosecutor's having increased power if it is justifiable. Deciding there can be an additional element to killing aside from the act itself is not something hates crimes have a monopoly on. Manslaughter and all the degrees of murder derive from the understanding that more than just the isolated outcome is important, that the intent and strategy of the killer matters as well.

I'm not arguing that it's not possible to consider other factors, I'm arguing that this is bad policy. Furthermore, the analogy between the other types of crime and this one doesn't work that well. In the context of murder v. manslaughter, the question of whether it qualifies as one or the other is a relatively straightforward question that can generally be determined from context. There isn't really a risk of prosecutorial abuse or charging disparity - you're not going to get convicted of murder if you accidentally drop a gun and it goes off, just like you'll probably be charged with murder if you plan a crime out and shoot someone in the face.

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."

Capital punishment is constitutionally vague and it is a more serious matter, since it giving the state the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

How is capital punishment constitutionally vague? Death penalty statutes are generally some of the most explicitly defined statutes on the books.

You'll have to elaborate on the last reason.

(Point of clarification: This federal legislation does not provide for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences [except for one small exception which isn't relevant here]. When I raised my objections to the use of mandatory minimums in hate crime laws, I meant to refer to the many state hate crime laws which include minimums.)

Mandatory minimum sentences have been an abject failure and we're moving toward eliminating them. We should continue down this path. This is a step in the wrong direction.

Provided the person genuinely intended to terrify an entire community into submission through his aggression against a single person, and especially if this is obvious from his demeanor and cues left the crime scene and elsewhere, there is no reason why he shouldn't be judged for the harm he did or attempted to do to that community as well as to the single individual. It was his plan, not anybody else's.

The point is that the statute doesn't limit the charges to situations like this. It's far too sweeping.

Not every state has minimum sentencing for certain crimes. You're correct, it doesn't ensure that someone is charged or convicted, but it does ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing, usually. This prevents systemic bias based on homophobia, and I think it's proper, at least for now. I adamantly believe that victims who are minorities still require protection in the justice system.

Again, to clarify, this law will only apply in cases that are brought by federal prosecutors in federal court. If you think that hate crimes are being pursued less vigorously than crime committed against white people, you need to back this up.

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.

Even though it doesn't guarantee a charge, a hate crime garners more attention from the police by virtue of the law alone. It compels authority to not ignore cases where the victim is a minority, which does still happen no matter what people choose to believe.

No but it spreads awareness and compels them to act in most cases.

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.

Also, I subscribe to the idea that crimes motivated by hate of a group disempowers the whole group that the victim is part of. It is more damaging to a group that is still trying to fight for equality. I'm not even American, and the tale of Matthew Shepard affected me.

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.

It sets a standard for criminals to think twice before they attack someone based on their sexual orientation, race, etc... and yes, I include white people in this, because there is racial crime against them too.

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."

I agree, but for all its flaws, I think it is a positive step for a society which is in transition. Justice is rarely perfect, hate crime or not. It helps minority groups to feel more secure in who they are and their struggle for equality.

So would a law providing for the death penalty for racism, but that wouldn't be a good law either.

If Federal judges are more astute then they'll be able to determine more readily what is and isn't a hate crime.

It's not up to the judges. It's the AUSA who decides what charges to bring and the jury who decides whether to convict. Furthermore, in the 90% of federal criminal prosecutions that plea before trial, the judge will have very limited input.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 
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:

law_7_4_739_tbl1a.gif


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Is it illegal to hate "hate crime" legislation yet. It's all stupid ****. We have a court system already. Mandatory sentencing, things of that nature is in general a bad idea. Trying to force higher prison terms based on feelings or attitudes is also a bad idea. Assault is assault. There are varying degrees of assault and it comes with its own window of punishment for the judge to do his job...judge, and ascribe appropriate punishment.
 
Is it illegal to hate "hate crime" legislation yet. It's all stupid ****. We have a court system already. Mandatory sentencing, things of that nature is in general a bad idea. Trying to force higher prison terms based on feelings or attitudes is also a bad idea. Assault is assault. There are varying degrees of assault and it comes with its own window of punishment for the judge to do his job...judge, and ascribe appropriate punishment.

Yet another person who completely misunderstands how the legislation works and how it is used by federal law enforcement--when appropriate.

Why post in the thread if you have no clue what you're talking about? What's the point? Venting about nothing.
 
This legislation does nothing to address root problems.

I agree with most of the posters. A crime is a crime. Enforce them. It's that simple.

We don't need to open the door to an Orwellian police state.
 
Back
Top Bottom