Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law!

[Navy1960]

... You see the flaw in your logic is this, the victims are just as dead or just as hurt regardless of who commits the crime and there are laws that punish those that commit the crimes as was the case with Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd.
In fact, in Matthew Sheppards case the person that committed the crime as given life w/o parole and in the Byrd case all were tired for murder, one was given the death sentence, and two were given life. How do you suppose a hate crimes law would have benefited the families in those cases? ...

Maybe you should ask them.
The families of both Matthew Shepard and Byrd were present at the signing of this bill. They seemed to think it was important.

"Judy Shepard, the mother of murdered gay teenager Matthew Shepard, has given her thanks to Congress and President Barack Obama for passing a new law to protect gays against hate crime.
...
In a statement, Shepard said: “When Dennis and I started calling ten years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long.


“The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged. But with President Obama’s support and the continually growing bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate lining up behind the bill this year, it became clear that 2009 was the year it would finally happen.”


The legislation allows federal authorities to pursue charges in violent crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability, in cases where local authorities cannot or will not secure appropriate convictions. It also opens up federal aid to local law enforcement for training, prevention and investigation."
​

Mother of Matthew Shepard welcomes US hate crimes bill

I don't have too paper because I see what the end result of those that committed this terrible crime was. It ended in the death of a young man, LIKE EVERY OTHER MURDER VICTIM who did not deserve it. Further, it also ended with those that committed the crime in prison for the rest of their lives and they will never be free again. Other than the death penalty which one of those that commited the crime in the Byrd case got, how could a hate crimes bill have benefited the Shepard family? The other thing that comes to mind here as tragic as it is , unless you are a member of the Shepard family or the Byrd family his death while tragic had little or no impact upon you. It does however have an impact now, because words now, can be used to convict those that you or I may disagree with and if you find this as a good thing, then I cannot convince you otherwise. However, here is something to consider, when you go into a courthouse and face a family that has lost a loved one to a drunk driver, try telling them that their family members death was not as meaningful becuse it only impacted them...

 

[Immanuel]

... You see the flaw in your logic is this, the victims are just as dead or just as hurt regardless of who commits the crime and there are laws that punish those that commit the crimes as was the case with Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd.
In fact, in Matthew Sheppards case the person that committed the crime as given life w/o parole and in the Byrd case all were tired for murder, one was given the death sentence, and two were given life. How do you suppose a hate crimes law would have benefited the families in those cases? ...

Maybe you should ask them.
The families of both Matthew Shepard and Byrd were present at the signing of this bill. They seemed to think it was important.

"Judy Shepard, the mother of murdered gay teenager Matthew Shepard, has given her thanks to Congress and President Barack Obama for passing a new law to protect gays against hate crime.
...
In a statement, Shepard said: “When Dennis and I started calling ten years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long.


“The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged. But with President Obama’s support and the continually growing bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate lining up behind the bill this year, it became clear that 2009 was the year it would finally happen.”


The legislation allows federal authorities to pursue charges in violent crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability, in cases where local authorities cannot or will not secure appropriate convictions. It also opens up federal aid to local law enforcement for training, prevention and investigation."
​

Mother of Matthew Shepard welcomes US hate crimes bill

I am glad that Mrs Sheppard feels that she received some satisfaction out of this although, I think she, and most of us, would have preferred she never, ever have to go through this ordeal.

My concern is more for those family members of victims who are not part of a protected class. That is what bothers me.

Immie

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's a joke. More feel good bullshit is all this is.

 

[Steerpike]

The same logic can be applied to women who are victims of domestic violence, and kids who were victims for Columbine. So therefor, all high school kids, are victims as a result of Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris shooting spree? While the victims of any crime have my sympathy they and their families deserve EQUAL treatment under the law and not SPECIAL treatment under the law. As I've stated before, what you end up accomplishing here, is a society in which words become illegal and speech becomes illegal. Who is to say what is good speech or bad? You, me, the president, the courts, who? The facts are laws are already in place to punish those that commit these terrible crimes and if as much effort were in place to advocate for punishing those that committed them rather than to limit free speech then you have really accomplished something. Under this law, then can I assume that some rap music is now illegal as it promote violence against African Americans, women , and the gay community, or is that an exception?

Yes. That's why I said it isn't flawless logic. You could even extend it logically to a group of people in a given area if a killer is terrorizing the area. But if the harm is against a protected or recognized group, we address it differently. Ultimately, it does more to perpetuate differential treatment than anything else, because it is in fact differential treatment under the law based on racial or other considerations that we claim to want to be blind to as a society.

 

[Navy1960]

The same logic can be applied to women who are victims of domestic violence, and kids who were victims for Columbine. So therefor, all high school kids, are victims as a result of Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris shooting spree? While the victims of any crime have my sympathy they and their families deserve EQUAL treatment under the law and not SPECIAL treatment under the law. As I've stated before, what you end up accomplishing here, is a society in which words become illegal and speech becomes illegal. Who is to say what is good speech or bad? You, me, the president, the courts, who? The facts are laws are already in place to punish those that commit these terrible crimes and if as much effort were in place to advocate for punishing those that committed them rather than to limit free speech then you have really accomplished something. Under this law, then can I assume that some rap music is now illegal as it promote violence against African Americans, women , and the gay community, or is that an exception?

Yes. That's why I said it isn't flawless logic. You could even extend it logically to a group of people in a given area if a killer is terrorizing the area. But if the harm is against a protected or recognized group, we address it differently. Ultimately, it does more to perpetuate differential treatment than anything else, because it is in fact differential treatment under the law based on racial or other considerations that we claim to want to be blind to as a society.

While I'm not unsympathetic to anyone that has been the victim of a crime and can see how someone can feel the need to be protected from hateful acts I don't believe that seperating people into catagories is a good way to motivate the prosecution of those that commit these crimes. In fact what it will do is is take the blindfold off justice so that lady justice can have one type of justice for one group and one for another.

 

[paperview]

The other thing that comes to mind here as tragic as it is , unless you are a member of the Shepard family or the Byrd family his death while tragic had little or no impact upon you.

I disagree. The Matthew Shepard murder had a profound impact on the gay & lesbian community, the city of Laramie and to a lesser degree, though still significant, a good many Americans as well.
This bill named in his honor, and the fact it had bipartisan support in Congress, as well as the approval of a majority of Americans gives evidence of its impact.

 

[rightwinger]

There are plenty of violent crimes committed that are predicated on simple, bloodless indifference to the suffering of the victim. Somebody gets in the way of a robbery, someone is in the wrong place during a drive-by, someone walks in on a break in...the list is pretty endless. Mugging isn't a hate crime, the criminal wants the purse, carjacking is not a hate crime, the criminal wanted the car.

they are still VIOLENT crimes and the person doing them should get the maximum sentence...

and if you can mug a person....your still an asshole and should be treated as such...and many victims of carjackings are hurt and some killed and guns are usually involved which makes them a violent crime......

We have always differentiated for intent.

If you plan a murder and carry it out, you get a more severe sentence than if you catch someone screwing your wife and shoot him on the spot.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This bill named in his honor, and the fact it had bipartisan support in Congress, as well as the approval of a majority of Americans gives evidence of its impact.

Oh, blah, blah blah.

 

[JD_2B]

I agree with the "live and let live". What I don't agree with is the idea that all things being equal, one crime against an individual of a particular race, creed or sexual preference is more deserving of punishment than the same crime against a victim who does not fit the politically correct idea of a protected class.

Imme

It's not politically correctness that is the issue here.

One injured person's worth is not being put above another injured person's worth, whatsoever.

The worth that is being punished harder is the motivation, and threat to society that a person poses. The motivation to injure someone just because they are... say... a muslim- it is not rational. I mean, people can have thoughts and suspicions, and all that- this is not about thought patrol.. Its about controlling one's actions, and impulse control. So it is not a big deal at all if someone sees a muslim and thinks that they might be a terrorist.. But it is a big deal if that person sees a muslim and just goes for the jugular, based on the sole fact or premise that the person is of a certain religion.. That is psychotic!!!

It's like someone killing me, just seeing me out in a store parking lot with my kid, not seeing a ring, and guessing that I am a single mom. (I am actually divorced, and my son's dad died a few years ago) So this crazy lunatic runs over and starts shooting at me, based on his own fucked up beliefs that all single moms are whores who are on welfare and all this shit. So then, there I am dead, and for what? Because some deranged asshole had poor impulse control and a pathological hate for a certain group of people (single moms)?? I would not have died that day if that guy didn't hate my perceived "social group"- that being the group of single mothers, and although I personally feel that the guy is more than welcome to feel whatever way he wants to towards single moms, I also EXPECT him to control his impulses and not pull out the glock and try to kill me. Thats LUNACY.

If it was some neighbor of mine, who came over thinking I was screwing around with their husband or something (think desperate housewives), and killed her husband, at LEAST there is some motive there, that her husband was cheating on her, and a deep set personal attachment that would have easily and reasonably been perceived to have been damaged by the infidelity. (perceived infidelity- I dont fuck anyone's husbands, lol) This is a crime of passion, because she LOVED him and (she thinks) he betrayed her..

A hate crime is spawned out of cold and pure hate.. nothing more..

A carjacker or mugger might kill someone and that is definitely awful and cold, too- but it is not spawned out of hate, it is usually someone scared of getting caught for committing the carjacking or mugging, or home invasion, or whatever, so it is a crime of necessity, rather than a crime of hate. Muggings and carjackings and thievery is all spawned from necessity, whatever the underlying problem might be- the person is on drugs, or whatever. Necessity is different from hate, and hate is different from passion.

You are speaking of two different types of crimes.

You will note that I said, "all things being equal". That is the difference between what you and I are speaking off.

For instance, let's say that Billy Bob comes across Marcus Jones out on a rural southern road and Marcus happens to be black. Billy Bob doesn't like black people so he proceeds to harrass Marcus then beats the living crap out of Marcus using racial slurs. Marcus dies in the road. Billy Bob deserves to receive the maximum punishment allowable by law for his crimes.

Now, let's change the victim. Instead of Marcus Jones, the victim is Mark Jones a scrawny white weakling. When Mark meets Billy Bob, Billy Bob sees Mark as a weak little pussy and beats the crap out of Mark, killing him while calling him a scrawny assed pipsqueak. No reason except that Billy Bob doesn't like the looks of the weakling. Since Mark is not known to be gay there is no "hate" involved so Billy Bob is given the minimum sentence allowable by law. Billy Bob deserves the maximum sentence but gets off light.

That sucks! And that is why hate crime laws are wrong.

Immie

The common thread here.. which I see you have caught on to.. is Billy Bob being full of hate.

You say Billy Bob thinks the scrawny guy is a "pussy"- and yet still make the unnecessary statement of making the leap that Mark was "not known to be gay".

Let me pull that assertion apart, piece by piece and explain to you how that is an anti-gay hate crime-

"pussy" is a sexually explicit term, and in this case is referring to a feminine male.

Just because Mark is not known to be gay, doesn't give Billy Bob reason to believe he is a feminine male, and most probably think that he is gay.. based on his own assertion that the weak male is feminine.

The difference between Billy Bob, who goes around beating people up and killing people and someone like, say.. Victor who shot some cashier in a convenience store during an armed robbery, is MENS REA, or in laymens terms, "intent". Billy Bob is a major threat to society because he goes out of his way to hurt people based on his own ridiculous and asinine assumptions about what their race or sexual orientation is, or how feminine they are- any way you cut it, his intent is without any merit of self preservation, and entirely based solely on hate alone.

So he is a major threat to society as a result, and we would all be happier if he spend longer in jail, and stayed away from innocent people who he had absolutely no reason to attack whatsoever.

He is not beating them to death because he needs their money.. (necessity)
He's not beating them to death because he needs a car.. (necessity)
He is not beating them to death because they fucked with his wife or kids, his livelihood has not been affected whatsoever.. (crime of passion)

He IS beating them to death because of the way they LOOK, and how HIS hateful heart perceives them to live THEIR own lives, personally.. (hate)

How can you try to say that Billy Bob's actions are anything BUT those of a lunatic sociopath???

 

[saveliberty]

JD_2B, your simply reaching for something that isn't there. The threat to society is the murder period. There is no good motivation for it. You may bring the punishment level into it at sentencing, but that isn't what this law does. It creates a second offense with its own penalty. It adds a charge for the prosecutor to bargain with to get convictions.

There are a fair number of people who are not well off or secure in their ability to beat a charge that will accept a plea here. Ten years is a long time, but facing a life in prison with no parole on a hate crime charge changes the stakes.

 

[JD_2B]

JD_2B, your simply reaching for something that isn't there. The threat to society is the murder period. There is no good motivation for it. You may bring the punishment level into it at sentencing, but that isn't what this law does. It creates a second offense with its own penalty. It adds a charge for the prosecutor to bargain with to get convictions.

There are a fair number of people who are not well off or secure in their ability to beat a charge that will accept a plea here. Ten years is a long time, but facing a life in prison with no parole on a hate crime charge changes the stakes.

If a person plans to kill his wife, then he is going to have an extra charge of conspiracy to commit murder, as well as the murder itself..

This is no different, except that instead of the person conspiring to commit murder, it is an impulse control issue, and bound by hate. Thus, hate crime legislation as extra charges are clearly a GOOD choice.

 

[Navy1960]

JD while I am sympathetic to your point to some degree, your attempt to minimize the the victims of brutality and at the same time enhance the brutality committed against those because they happen to be of a different skin color or sexual orientation. Forgive me but I choose to see ALL victims for brutality the same and would hope that those that commit crimes against them are prosecuted with the FULL weight of the law such as was the case with Matthew Shepard and James Byrd. What canot agree with here is that a crime based on the motivation behind it produces any less a victim than any other crime simply based on who that victim happens to be. If that were the case, then then why not have courts for the poor , for the rich , and while we are at it, one for hispanics, one for whites, one for African Americans, and one for those that are vicitms based on their sexual orientation. While of course these crimes are terrible and those that commit them deserve to be punished, they do not deserve to be seperated based on who the victim happens to be or what they happen to believe in. Blind Justice is a bedrock principle of our form of jurisprudence and once taken away you create a system that favors one group over another, is this what you really want? because at it's core that is what you are advocating.

 

[indianaboy]

If a person plans to kill his wife, then he is going to have an extra charge of conspiracy to commit murder, as well as the murder itself..

Only if he planned it out with another person.

 

[Immanuel]

It's not politically correctness that is the issue here.

One injured person's worth is not being put above another injured person's worth, whatsoever.

The worth that is being punished harder is the motivation, and threat to society that a person poses. The motivation to injure someone just because they are... say... a muslim- it is not rational. I mean, people can have thoughts and suspicions, and all that- this is not about thought patrol.. Its about controlling one's actions, and impulse control. So it is not a big deal at all if someone sees a muslim and thinks that they might be a terrorist.. But it is a big deal if that person sees a muslim and just goes for the jugular, based on the sole fact or premise that the person is of a certain religion.. That is psychotic!!!

It's like someone killing me, just seeing me out in a store parking lot with my kid, not seeing a ring, and guessing that I am a single mom. (I am actually divorced, and my son's dad died a few years ago) So this crazy lunatic runs over and starts shooting at me, based on his own fucked up beliefs that all single moms are whores who are on welfare and all this shit. So then, there I am dead, and for what? Because some deranged asshole had poor impulse control and a pathological hate for a certain group of people (single moms)?? I would not have died that day if that guy didn't hate my perceived "social group"- that being the group of single mothers, and although I personally feel that the guy is more than welcome to feel whatever way he wants to towards single moms, I also EXPECT him to control his impulses and not pull out the glock and try to kill me. Thats LUNACY.

If it was some neighbor of mine, who came over thinking I was screwing around with their husband or something (think desperate housewives), and killed her husband, at LEAST there is some motive there, that her husband was cheating on her, and a deep set personal attachment that would have easily and reasonably been perceived to have been damaged by the infidelity. (perceived infidelity- I dont fuck anyone's husbands, lol) This is a crime of passion, because she LOVED him and (she thinks) he betrayed her..

A hate crime is spawned out of cold and pure hate.. nothing more..

A carjacker or mugger might kill someone and that is definitely awful and cold, too- but it is not spawned out of hate, it is usually someone scared of getting caught for committing the carjacking or mugging, or home invasion, or whatever, so it is a crime of necessity, rather than a crime of hate. Muggings and carjackings and thievery is all spawned from necessity, whatever the underlying problem might be- the person is on drugs, or whatever. Necessity is different from hate, and hate is different from passion.

You are speaking of two different types of crimes.

You will note that I said, "all things being equal". That is the difference between what you and I are speaking off.

For instance, let's say that Billy Bob comes across Marcus Jones out on a rural southern road and Marcus happens to be black. Billy Bob doesn't like black people so he proceeds to harrass Marcus then beats the living crap out of Marcus using racial slurs. Marcus dies in the road. Billy Bob deserves to receive the maximum punishment allowable by law for his crimes.

Now, let's change the victim. Instead of Marcus Jones, the victim is Mark Jones a scrawny white weakling. When Mark meets Billy Bob, Billy Bob sees Mark as a weak little pussy and beats the crap out of Mark, killing him while calling him a scrawny assed pipsqueak. No reason except that Billy Bob doesn't like the looks of the weakling. Since Mark is not known to be gay there is no "hate" involved so Billy Bob is given the minimum sentence allowable by law. Billy Bob deserves the maximum sentence but gets off light.

That sucks! And that is why hate crime laws are wrong.

Immie

The common thread here.. which I see you have caught on to.. is Billy Bob being full of hate.

You say Billy Bob thinks the scrawny guy is a "pussy"- and yet still make the unnecessary statement of making the leap that Mark was "not known to be gay".

Let me pull that assertion apart, piece by piece and explain to you how that is an anti-gay hate crime-

"pussy" is a sexually explicit term, and in this case is referring to a feminine male.

Just because Mark is not known to be gay, doesn't give Billy Bob reason to believe he is a feminine male, and most probably think that he is gay.. based on his own assertion that the weak male is feminine.

The difference between Billy Bob, who goes around beating people up and killing people and someone like, say.. Victor who shot some cashier in a convenience store during an armed robbery, is MENS REA, or in laymens terms, "intent". Billy Bob is a major threat to society because he goes out of his way to hurt people based on his own ridiculous and asinine assumptions about what their race or sexual orientation is, or how feminine they are- any way you cut it, his intent is without any merit of self preservation, and entirely based solely on hate alone.

So he is a major threat to society as a result, and we would all be happier if he spend longer in jail, and stayed away from innocent people who he had absolutely no reason to attack whatsoever.

He is not beating them to death because he needs their money.. (necessity)
He's not beating them to death because he needs a car.. (necessity)
He is not beating them to death because they fucked with his wife or kids, his livelihood has not been affected whatsoever.. (crime of passion)

He IS beating them to death because of the way they LOOK, and how HIS hateful heart perceives them to live THEIR own lives, personally.. (hate)

How can you try to say that Billy Bob's actions are anything BUT those of a lunatic sociopath???

The problem though JD_2B is that in the case of Marcus Jones, Billy Bob would be tried for a hate crime. In the case of Mark Jones, Billy Bob would be tried for murder. In the case of Marcus, Billy Bob would get the maximum penalty allowed by law... as he should. In the case of Mark, Billy Bob, would probably not get the maximum penalty allowed by law, when in fact, he deserves the exact same penalty regardless of whether or not the victim is Marcus or Mark.

Marcus being of a protected class gets complete justice. Mark being of a non-protected class gets partial justice.

In both cases, Billy Bob needs to see the inside of a prison cell for the rest of his life, not ONLY in the case of Marcus.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

JD_2B, your simply reaching for something that isn't there. The threat to society is the murder period. There is no good motivation for it. You may bring the punishment level into it at sentencing, but that isn't what this law does. It creates a second offense with its own penalty. It adds a charge for the prosecutor to bargain with to get convictions.

There are a fair number of people who are not well off or secure in their ability to beat a charge that will accept a plea here. Ten years is a long time, but facing a life in prison with no parole on a hate crime charge changes the stakes.

If a person plans to kill his wife, then he is going to have an extra charge of conspiracy to commit murder, as well as the murder itself..

This is no different, except that instead of the person conspiring to commit murder, it is an impulse control issue, and bound by hate. Thus, hate crime legislation as extra charges are clearly a GOOD choice.

Conspiracy only occurs with another party involved in the murder. The "impulse control" you are so fond of mentioning is called hate. ALL murders are hate-filled. What we have here is unequal protection under the law and that is not what we strive for in the US.

 

[Immanuel]

In both cases, Billy Bob needs to see the inside of a prison cell for the rest of his life, not ONLY in the case of Marcus.

Immie

Don't believe me? Read the link that the link YOU provided leads to:

Recommendations for Governments | Hate Crimes | Fighting Discrimination | Human Rights First

2. Enact laws that expressly address hate crimes. Recognizing the particular harm caused by violent hate crimes, governments should enact laws that establish specific offenses or provide enhanced penalties for violent crimes committed because of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, mental and physical disabilities, or other similar status.

That is exactly what they are calling for in their 10-point plan. I have absolutely no problem punishing the killers of Matthew Sheppard or James Byrd Jr. to the fullest extent of the law and quite frankly, the Death Penalty is not unreasonable in certain situations, but all victims of such crime regardless of whether or not it is deemed a "Hate Crime" are entitled to equal justice under the law.

Immie

 

[Harry Dresden]

bunch of shit....if i intentionally beat up a guy who happens to be gay and say i kill him....i should get the maximum sentence....it should not be more just because i called him a fag when i killed him....he is no more of a human than anyone else... if you intentionally hurt another person or kill them the sentence should be the max....period and no time off for good behavior....every minute served....

I agree- people should not get leniency just because their motives were not directed towards someones race, sexual orientation, etc..

BUT- if you beat up some random guy, with no other motive than the fact that he was gay, or of a particular race or religion, etc, then the "motive" is absolutely sociopathic in nature, and the person who committed the offense should be considered a far greater danger to society as a whole, than the typical violent offender.

snipped for brevity's sake

Good post JD_2B and I agree with you. There are circumstances that might mitigate the charges. However, IMHO, all things being equal, a crime should not be more severely punishable simply because the victim fits into a protected class of people and I believe that is where these kinds of laws will end up regardless of intention.

Immie

RIGHT.Immie.....a VIOLENT crime is a VIOLENT crime....the maximum sentence should be given......we have all these damned zero tolerance laws....how about ZERO tolerance for VIOLENT CRIMES.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's not politically correctness that is the issue here.


The motivation to injure someone just because they are... say... a muslim- it is not rational.

yes it is political correctness......and the motivation to injure someone, anyone, no matter who they are....is not rational....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It is a separate charge people. Prosecutors use a charge like that to get plea bargains. It is an imbalance in the justice system.

a very BIG imbalance.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Maybe you should ask them.
The families of both Matthew Shepard and Byrd were present at the signing of this bill. They seemed to think it was important.

"Judy Shepard, the mother of murdered gay teenager Matthew Shepard, has given her thanks to Congress and President Barack Obama for passing a new law to protect gays against hate crime.
...
In a statement, Shepard said: “When Dennis and I started calling ten years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long.


“The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged. But with President Obama’s support and the continually growing bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate lining up behind the bill this year, it became clear that 2009 was the year it would finally happen.”


The legislation allows federal authorities to pursue charges in violent crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability, in cases where local authorities cannot or will not secure appropriate convictions. It also opens up federal aid to local law enforcement for training, prevention and investigation."
​

Mother of Matthew Shepard welcomes US hate crimes bill

what do you think they were going to say?....of course they are on board with this....why dont you ask the parents of some kid who was killed violently and the guy gets 15 years....and time off for good behavior...were parents like this at this bogus politically correct signing?.....