Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

[Redress]

Congress extends hate crime protections to gays - Yahoo! News

Associated Press – 32 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

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.

 

[Ikari]

I was gonna post this, but got beaten to the punch (that's what I get for working on my thesis instead of wasting time on DP!).

I'd have to agree with you on this case on both fronts. I personally hate hate crime legislation. I certainly hope they never make that a hate crime cause I'll be in jail for life if they do. I think it's pointless, stupid, and is made only to justify further government intervention. It's not to say there are absolutely no problems, but it's not a law issue. There's already laws against assault and murder and all that, we don't need to make something that's already illegal even more illegal. You have to prosecute these things fairly. Assault is assault. You can't do it. It doesn't matter if you're motivated by hate of a group, or you're just pissed off, or someone insulted the Bears (actually, that last one is legitimate excuse for assault!). Hate crime legislation doesn't address the root problem.

As for sneaking it in on a defense bill...I think that's just dirty pool.

 

[Harshaw]

Agreed on hate crimes legislation.

I've often said that the one thing we could learn from the Confederate constitution was their provision that any piece of legislation concern only one subject and that the subject must make up part of the title of the bill.

It was a good idea.

 

[Dav]

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 agree on both points... but I admit I was pretty surprised to see the bolded part coming from you.

 

[Redress]

Agreed on hate crimes legislation.

I've often said that the one thing we could learn from the Confederate constitution was their provision that any piece of legislation concern only one subject and that the subject must make up part of the title of the bill.

It was a good idea.

I would certainly support such a reform.

 

[Orion]

I greatly dislike when people in government push through their agenda by attaching law to an irrelevant bill. The current conservative government in Canada is fond of doing that.

I disagree that hate crime laws are not needed. Law enforcement in its very nature tends to be conservative. To pretend that there isn't prejudice against homosexuals, especially by more conservative elements of society, to which law enforcement officers generally are, is putting on blinders. I am not saying that every cop is a raging homophobic, but I am not saying it's all peace, love and happiness, either.

Hate crime laws exist to ensure that crimes are not ignored or minimized based on personal feelings about the victim's lifestyle. It compels investigators and attorneys to do their jobs.

 

[Redress]

I agree on both points... but I admit I was pretty surprised to see the bolded part coming from you.

Why? I am not sure what I have said that would give any other impression.

 

[Redress]

I disagree that hate crime laws are not needed. Law enforcement in its very nature tends to be conservative. To pretend that there isn't prejudice against homosexuals, especially by more conservative elements of society, to which law enforcement officers generally are, is putting on blinders. I am not saying that every cop is a raging homophobic, but I am not saying it's all peace, love and happiness, either.

Hate crime laws exist to ensure that crimes are not ignored or minimized based on personal feelings about the victim's lifestyle. It compels investigators and attorneys to do their jobs.

It does not do this though, at least not to my mind. Assault is a crime, and if that crime is ignored, it will still be ignored. Thankfully, I don't think that is much of a problem these days.

While most cops might be conservative, most cops are cops first. Assault and murder are still crimes, no matter who the victim, and this is what I think most cops think about, the crime.

 

[akyron]

An utter waste of time and a distraction. A crime is a crime. There is no need for further adjectives.

 

[Dav]

Why? I am not sure what I have said that would give any other impression.

You're a pro-homosexual bigot, are you not? :lol:

 

[Cold Highway]

Hate crimes do more harm than good.

 

[Redress]

You're a pro-homosexual bigot, are you not? :lol:

Yes, but I am not trying to set up homosexuals as a privileged class. Further, my opposition is to hate crime laws, not gay rights.

And the "pro-homosexual bigot" line is something I was called that I stole since it amuses me.

 

[Orion]

It does not do this though, at least not to my mind. Assault is a crime, and if that crime is ignored, it will still be ignored. Thankfully, I don't think that is much of a problem these days.

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.

While most cops might be conservative, most cops are cops first.

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.

Assault and murder are still crimes, no matter who the victim, and this is what I think most cops think about, the crime.

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.

 

[Black Dog]

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.

You are one smart woman for a liberal. Are you sure you are not more of an independent with a lean to the right?

 

[Redress]

You are one smart woman for a liberal. Are you sure you are not more of an independent with a lean to the right?

Nah, I am fairly far to the left actually, and you would be surprised at how many of us have the same basic ideas. "The left" represents a really broad collection of political ideas, which is why those who refer to liberals with blanket statements are almost always far too simplistic in their portrayals...but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[RightinNYC]

This is a bad idea, for the reasons we discussed the last time this came up:

The concept of "hate crime" is idiotic and unworkable. The underlying problem is that they can be applied to almost anything. Check out this article for an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03plumb.html?_r=2&oref=sloginNo&oref=slogin

The perpetrators here used a gay chatroom to find their victim not because they had any specific animus toward gays, but because they thought he would be easier to overpower. Despite the fact that there was no evidence of “hate,” they were convicted under a hate crime law.

Under the recent "hate crime" laws passed by the House, if a hoodlum chose to rob a woman because he believed she would be easier to overpower than a man, he has committed a “hate crime.” If he chose to attack a man on crutches because he couldn’t chase after him, he has committed a “hate crime.”

Nobody is saying that these acts aren’t immoral and illegal, but they are already criminalized under our existing statutes. The addition of “hate crime” laws merely serve to give prosecutors additional leverage to hold over the head of criminal defendants and to make civil rights advocates feel as if they've won a battle.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If the person is found innocent then it won't matter who they allegedly attacked.

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.

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.

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.

 

[TheNextEra]

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.

I agree hate crime laws should go away, but as long as they are here adding gays to the list was a natural progression.

 

[Gardener]

Using workarounds to get something through is just wrong.

I had to read this three times before I realized you said WORKarounds.

 

[Phoenix]

White man kills a White man .......... Was it Love?

 

[Thorgasm]

White man kills a White man .......... Was it Love?

Exactly....

A crime is a crime.

 

[Morality Games]

I really don't see why anyone reasonable would feel the existence of hate crime legislation is a great wrong. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay. Where did they go astray?

 

[RightinNYC]

I really don't see why anyone reasonable feels one way or another about hate crime legislation. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay.

I care because I'm concerned about the increased power that this gives prosecutors, the fact that I think it's unconstitutionally vague, and because it adds to the mandatory minimum laws on the books while we should be dismantling them. These are not unimportant things in my book.

 

[Phoenix]

I really don't see why anyone reasonable would feel the existence of hate crime legislation is a great wrong. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay. Where did they go astray?

Because I believe in equality and different sentencing guidelines elevates one group above another.

 

[Morality Games]

I care because I'm concerned about the increased power that this gives prosecutors, the fact that I think it's unconstitutionally vague, and because it adds to the mandatory minimum laws on the books while we should be dismantling them. These are not unimportant things in my book.

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. Such is the case with genocide and terrorism and other acts against humanity.

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. There is no need to take exception to hate crimes unless we are taking exception to a variety of other practices. If you are opposed to capital punishment as well, then that requires a different argument.

You'll have to elaborate on the last reason.

Because I believe in equality and different sentencing guidelines elevates one group above another.

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.

 

[Phoenix]

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.

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.