We truly live in exciting times. Our dauntless Congress has managed to pass an extension of the existing hate crime legislation to protect Gays and Lesbians from crimes of hatred. Of course, doubters of their (Congress) courage in this action might point out that physical battery is a crime and is punished when proven. Hatred as a crime enters a very risky area in which we allow our government to make some types of thought illegal. While it seems and feels nice to criminalize this type of hatred, one must feel some concern about how this could be extended by our law enforcers.
In the meantime, Congress seems absolutely incapable of taking action where it could accomplish something of value for Gays and Lesbian citizen. Specifically, when will they act on repealing and correcting Don't Ask Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage abominable legislations from the past?
Yay! About time the hate crime protection was extended to the people who need it most right now. We've been trying to correct this omission for quite a while. W vowed to veto it, so it was dead in the water under him. Glad they've finally gotten that through. This is not just a token action. It matters. There are still pockets of insane rednecks who honestly don't believe that beating or killing gays is really wrong, rather than a tribute to their God. Their law enforcement frequently shares their views (that's why they elected them) so taking them to court can be promblematical. A federal statute means that the victims have recourse if the local enforcement are the criminals.
Don't ask, don't tell, will be shot down soon. If for no other reason than it is interferring with our ability to keep well-trained, devoted troops in key jobs. DOMA will be reversed too. Obama seems to be the slow and steady type. I wish he'd move quicker too, but he has a lot to juggle and he's doing okay. I have real hopes that all our citizens will have their civil rights in the reasonably near future. When Obama talked to the Human Rights campaign, he made all the right promises. The only thing he didn't promise that I believe everyone should have, is the right to marriage. He ducked that and just said that all couples should have the same rights, clearly not wanting to call it "marriage" if you're gay.
Granted, there are pockets of insane rednecks (and perhaps not so red necks) who believe it right to kill or maim gays. Where are these actions not treated as a crime? Texas sentenced the men who killed a black man leading to this type law to death. Is that not a sufficiently draconian punishment whether the animals hated him or not? The animals who killed Mr Shepard have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder. What would have been the impact of adding "hate" to their crime list?
The only possible justification I can see for this legislation is that it allows the Feds to aid in investigating such crimes. I suppose it will also allow prosecution by the Feds in Federal court for hate when local prosecution failed to establish murder charges. In exchange for that added protection, we enter an era in which one might conceivably be indicted for hating someone.
I agree that the Feds should follow up and investigate these crimes, but it is about time that support for the Gays and Lesbians. States, individually, have made strives to move America forward towards accepting everyone. It is time that our country as whole makes these steps, and finally Congress has stepped in to make the difference. It is one thing to just pass the extension of the legislation, but now they need to follow their word and heavily enforce this protection.
The law does not make it a crime to hate someone. That is a straw man intended to stimulate debate. The law makes it a crime to translate that emotion into action.
Sorta like murder, in which we have three different levels, first degree, second degree and third degree. Each is based upon different emotions. Third is usually having to do with robbery, where the death is incidental to the crime and not an intentional action. Second usually has to do with crimes of passion, where someone loses control and goes crazy. First degree is about pre-meditation, or deliberately planned murder.
Each has telltale signs and evidence that allow cops to gather to show a court what the suspects motives were: robbery or merely a beating to hurt someone or perhaps killing for life insurance money.
Killing or assaulting someone because they are a different race, or gay, is no different from doing so because they have money you want or whether they whistled at your girl friend, except in degree.
That degree is what makes it worse, because interracial hatred is what separates people from each other for no better reason than the color of their skin, and gay hatred is about something that is not only invisible, but some thing the target can do nothing about, like the racial thing.
So the hatred is irrational, infectious and harmful to the good order and peace of this country.
Again, hate crime legislation does not make hatred a crime, but it does make putting that emotion to action illegal.
I agree with rwahrens, the problem with hate crime legislation is a double jeopardy concern. Aren't all crimes hate crimes? Why does someone murder their husbands lover? Why does hate make the crime worse. Every crime is committed because of a fallacy of thought, why should racism be penalized twice?
People kill or attack others all the time without hating them. Most robberies are done by criminals that don't hate their victims at all.
The statutes that make "hate crimes" separate violations or violations that add time to a sentence do NOT add a double jeopardy concern, that was disposed of by the SCOTUS years ago.
A motive, as I explained, can be proven. The law does not make Hating someone a crime. It makes it a crime to take action based upon that motive. So if you attack someone you hate because they are black, or gay, or a woman, and make statements that express that hate, that proves a hate crime. That is further backed up by that usual fact that hate attackers normally do not even try to make it look like a robbery.
A recent clip was shown on Youtube where two guys savagely beat a gay man. When they finished, they walked away, picked up his wallet, walked back to him and tossed it at his feet! They then kicked him a couple of times for good measure, and walked away! If they had taken the wallet, they could have claimed robbery as a motive and perhaps gotten off on the hate crime portion of the charges. Fortunately, they didn't think about that.
Hate crime legislation does not make hating a crime, but it DOES make translating that hate into illegal action a separate crime, different from the illegal action itself.
why should we add time to a criminal sentence for a racist motive... what about timothy mcveigh who hated abortion doctors and murdered many? why do hate crimes not cover this? elevating race to this protection is absurd. let our law enforcement professionals prosecute the existing crimes on the books, instead of adding laws that punish motives. the reason that someone does something is not important, only that the act has been committed
It's not so much the issue of race as it is the issue of hatred based on hate. In general, a I said above, I find it disturbing to see laws against mental attitudes. However, with this legislation, it is possible for the Federal courts to try persons found not guilty of the violent crime for violations of hatred and violation of individuals' civil rights. This has been a useful tool in the past and may, on occasion, still be useful. On the obverse side, Canada is undergoing serious threat to free speech because of similar legislation concerning "hate" speech legislation. If you are interested, google or Bing on Exra Levant.
why should we add time to a criminal sentence for a racist motive...
Why? Because it causes the haters to stop and think before acting. It adds time to the sentence for the basic violation, so that a hate crime gets a longer sentence. That makes it clear to haters that their actions are not condoned by society, thus, hopefully, they will refrain from taking action in the future.
...what about timothy mcveigh who hated abortion doctors and murdered many?
Timothy McVeigh didn't kill any abortion doctors, unless there were some in the Oklahoma City Federal building he bombed. You need to use Google, it is your friend so you don't embarrass yourself again.
AGAIN! These laws do not punish motives, but the act of translating that motive into action. You can hate all you want, you just can't ACT out that hate.
In general, a I said above, I find it disturbing to see laws against mental attitudes.
The hate crime laws are NOT laws against motive or attitudes. You can hate all you want, nobody can make that illegal.
What they CAN do is make it illegal to take that hate and ACT upon it. A hate crime is a separate crime from the violence used to hurt someone. If you strike someone as an act of hate, and make a remark that proves it was a hate crime, you have committed two separate crimes: first, translating the hate into action, and second, the illegal action itself.
Note that the emotion of hate is not illegal, that is something that is within your head nobody can ever know about unless you take action to express that emotion. If that action is illegal, you have committed a hate crime. If you simply express that emotion by speaking, that action is protected speech (unless it is threatening), so that expression of hate would be perfectly legal.
The difference is whether the action you take is legal or not.
Don't ask, don't tell, will be shot down soon. If for no other reason than it is interferring with our ability to keep well-trained, devoted troops in key jobs. DOMA will be reversed too. Obama seems to be the slow and steady type. I wish he'd move quicker too, but he has a lot to juggle and he's doing okay. I have real hopes that all our citizens will have their civil rights in the reasonably near future. When Obama talked to the Human Rights campaign, he made all the right promises. The only thing he didn't promise that I believe everyone should have, is the right to marriage. He ducked that and just said that all couples should have the same rights, clearly not wanting to call it "marriage" if you're gay.