Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law!

[paperview]

Federal Hate Crimes Laws have been in exisitance for 40 years. The only thing this does is extend it to one more arena: sexual orientation and disabled.

Your party has had 40 years to remove Federal Hate Crimes laws. Have they? No.

Don't think all the bellyaching in the world is going to change much. If you are really serious, write your congressman asking him or her to repeal the law.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

i understand what you are saying RW...but i am talking about the Crimes where the guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he did it.....not the temporary insanity variety....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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???

i do hope you are not a judge in real life.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

any time you kill someone in cold blood you are COMMITTING A HATE CRIME.....

 

[Barb]

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.

In the case of conspiracy you are correct, but premeditation is an added factor, and I think that is what was meant.

 

[JW Frogen]

any time you kill someone in cold blood you are COMMITTING A HATE CRIME.....

Blood is warm, and the best warriors do not hate.

 

[JD_2B]

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.

any time you kill someone in cold blood you are COMMITTING A HATE CRIME.....

You say "in cold blood", not understanding the full use of that phrase..

A husband can kill his wife in a "cold blooded murder".. It just means that it was AWFUL and TERRIBLE and yes.. Hateful.

Yet, "cold blooded" still does not equate to a hate crime.

The problem here is that "cold blood" is not legal terminology, while "hate crime" is..

ALL Hate crimes are cold blooded.. but not all cold blooded crimes are hate crimes. Some cold blooded crimes are crimes of necessity, crimes of passion, etc..

I understand your sentiment here.. but you cant apply that to the legal aspect of the debate.

 

[Navy1960]

A. J. ARAVE, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. THOMAS E. CREECH
Justice Blackmun , with whom Justice Stevens joins, [n.1] however, the majority's reconstruction only highlights the deficient character of the nebulous formulation that it seeks to advance. Because the metaphor "cold blooded" by which Idaho defines its "utter disregard" circumstance is both vague and unenlightening, and because the majority's recasting of that metaphor is not dictated by common usage, legal usage, or the usage of the Idaho courts, the statute fails to provide meaningful guidance to the sentencer as required by the Constitution. Accordingly, I dissent.


In legal usage, the metaphor "cold blood" does have a specific meaning. "Cold blood" is used "to designate a willful, deliberate, and premeditated homicide." Black's Law Dictionary 260 (6th ed. 1990). As such, the term is used to differentiate between first and second degree murders. [n.13] For example, in United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982), Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, described the District of Columbia's homicide statute: " `In homespun terminology, intentional murder is in the first degree if committed in cold blood, and is murder in the second degree if committed on impulse or in the sudden heat of passion.' " Id., at 170, n. 18 (1982), quoting Austin v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D.C. 180, 188, 382 F. 2d 129, 137 (1967). Murder in cold blood is, in this sense, the opposite of murder in "hot blood." Arguably, then, the Osborn formulation covers every intentional or first degree murder. An aggravating circumstance so construed would clearly be unconstitutional under Godfrey.

Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1993).

Just thought you might like to know that and the word hate and crime also have varried meaning within the law as well. They do not just designate a predisposition or prejudice prior to commiting a crime.

Plus there are a few more things to consider here when discussing these hate crimes laws,

R. A. V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
After allegedly burning a cross on a black family's lawn, petitioner R. A. V. was charged under, inter alia, the St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge on the ground that the ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, but the State Supreme Court reversed. It rejected the overbreadth claim because the phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" had been construed in earlier state cases to limit the ordinance's reach to "fighting words" within the meaning of this Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, a category of expression unprotected by the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly content based because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias motivated threats to public safety and order.

b) A few limited categories of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, may be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content. However, these categories are notentirely invisible to the Constitution, and government may not regulate them based on hostility, or favoritism, towards a nonproscribable message they contain. Thus the regulation of "fighting words" may not be based on nonproscribable content. It may, however, be underinclusive, addressing some offensive instances and leaving other, equally offensive, ones alone, so long as the selective proscription is not based on content, or there is no realistic possibility that regulation of ideas is afoot.

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)

It remains to be seen where all this is going, but the court has held in the past that these laws don't violate the 1st or the 14th as well soo we will see.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

any time you kill someone in cold blood you are COMMITTING A HATE CRIME.....

You say "in cold blood", not understanding the full use of that phrase..

A husband can kill his wife in a "cold blooded murder".. It just means that it was AWFUL and TERRIBLE and yes.. Hateful.

Yet, "cold blooded" still does not equate to a hate crime.

The problem here is that "cold blood" is not legal terminology, while "hate crime" is..

ALL Hate crimes are cold blooded.. but not all cold blooded crimes are hate crimes. Some cold blooded crimes are crimes of necessity, crimes of passion, etc..

I understand your sentiment here.. but you cant apply that to the legal aspect of the debate.

I have made several references to how this law will actually be used in practice. Prosecutors will add the charge which carries a life in prison sentence. Many people will choose to plea bargain to avoid that possibility. Not all will necessarily be guilty. What are your comments on this problem the law creates.

 

[JD_2B]

I have made several references to how this law will actually be used in practice. Prosecutors will add the charge which carries a life in prison sentence. Many people will choose to plea bargain to avoid that possibility. Not all will necessarily be guilty. What are your comments on this problem the law creates.

I don't see this as being a problem created by the law.. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is offered a plea bargain. Prosecutors will often offer this either out of fear of losing at trial, or out of empathy for someone who does something that they were pushed into or themselves victimized, etc.. or to give a smaller fish a break for helping them catch a shark.

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

Are you saying that someone who killed someone would get scared based on the EXTRA charge of it being a hate crime, and plead out, so this causes a problem?? HOW SO?

OR are you saying that for people who are wrongfully accused of killing someone or committing any other crime against someone, who didn't cause anyone any harm whatsoever, who will plead out out of fear.. and as such, this bill causes a problem. This doesn't even make sense- That's like saying "oh we might as well not have any laws, for fear that a person is wrongfully accused and gets frightened into pleading guilty"- Boy, thats a bunch of nonsense, if I ever heard of it.

I have read your comments on this, and never have any of them made any damned sense at all.

 

[indianaboy]

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

I disagree. I've had several cases where it was in my client's best interests to plead to something despite being innocent.

 

[saveliberty]

I have made several references to how this law will actually be used in practice. Prosecutors will add the charge which carries a life in prison sentence. Many people will choose to plea bargain to avoid that possibility. Not all will necessarily be guilty. What are your comments on this problem the law creates.

I don't see this as being a problem created by the law.. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is offered a plea bargain. Prosecutors will often offer this either out of fear of losing at trial, or out of empathy for someone who does something that they were pushed into or themselves victimized, etc.. or to give a smaller fish a break for helping them catch a shark.

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

Are you saying that someone who killed someone would get scared based on the EXTRA charge of it being a hate crime, and plead out, so this causes a problem?? HOW SO?

OR are you saying that for people who are wrongfully accused of killing someone or committing any other crime against someone, who didn't cause anyone any harm whatsoever, who will plead out out of fear.. and as such, this bill causes a problem. This doesn't even make sense- That's like saying "oh we might as well not have any laws, for fear that a person is wrongfully accused and gets frightened into pleading guilty"- Boy, thats a bunch of nonsense, if I ever heard of it.

I have read your comments on this, and never have any of them made any damned sense at all.

Hate crimes extend beyond just murder. If accused of a sexual assault and a hate crime charge is attached you have the same problem. Imagine being falsely accused and facing life in prison. Your offered 5 years with time off for good behavior. Not watching your kids grow up or lose three years. That is a huge gamble. You assume innocent always translates to no jail. Attorneys make these type of deals all the time. Welcome to the real world. I see teachers being victimized in particular. Also, cases where there is some doubt are the ones most likely to have an innocent person being given a plea agreement.

 

[Neser Boha]

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

I disagree. I've had several cases where it was in my client's best interests to plead to something despite being innocent.

Wow. I sure hope I'll never be wrongly accused of something as I would NEVER plea to anything were I innocent. Wow, I can't even imagine that.

 

[Immanuel]

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

I disagree. I've had several cases where it was in my client's best interests to plead to something despite being innocent.

Wow. I sure hope I'll never be wrongly accused of something as I would NEVER plea to anything were I innocent. Wow, I can't even imagine that.

Neither can I, but just think about it. If you are accused of a heineous crime and offered the chance to plead to a lesser charge in order to avoid a trial. You are given the choice of less than 10 years or 25 to life should you not be able to prove your innocence, you have to weigh the risks of being found guilty compared against your innocence and the time you may possibly lose.

Sometimes the risks are not worth the return.

And the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is not true in the eyes of the prosecutor. If he/she believes you are guilty he'll go after you with both barrels and you had damn well be able to prove your innocence.

Immie

 

[JD_2B]

I have made several references to how this law will actually be used in practice. Prosecutors will add the charge which carries a life in prison sentence. Many people will choose to plea bargain to avoid that possibility. Not all will necessarily be guilty. What are your comments on this problem the law creates.

I don't see this as being a problem created by the law.. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is offered a plea bargain. Prosecutors will often offer this either out of fear of losing at trial, or out of empathy for someone who does something that they were pushed into or themselves victimized, etc.. or to give a smaller fish a break for helping them catch a shark.

Also, people shouldn't plead out on a charge they are not guilty of, whatsoever.

Are you saying that someone who killed someone would get scared based on the EXTRA charge of it being a hate crime, and plead out, so this causes a problem?? HOW SO?

OR are you saying that for people who are wrongfully accused of killing someone or committing any other crime against someone, who didn't cause anyone any harm whatsoever, who will plead out out of fear.. and as such, this bill causes a problem. This doesn't even make sense- That's like saying "oh we might as well not have any laws, for fear that a person is wrongfully accused and gets frightened into pleading guilty"- Boy, thats a bunch of nonsense, if I ever heard of it.

I have read your comments on this, and never have any of them made any damned sense at all.

Hate crimes extend beyond just murder. If accused of a sexual assault and a hate crime charge is attached you have the same problem. Imagine being falsely accused and facing life in prison. Your offered 5 years with time off for good behavior. Not watching your kids grow up or lose three years. That is a huge gamble. You assume innocent always translates to no jail. Attorneys make these type of deals all the time. Welcome to the real world. I see teachers being victimized in particular. Also, cases where there is some doubt are the ones most likely to have an innocent person being given a plea agreement.

I have a friend who was completely nutso for a while, still kinda is, but anyways, she was going through her bisexual phase, and had a girlfriend. I wanted to meet the gf, and I wanted her (my BFF at the time) to meet some of my friends, too, because we live in different places now, etc, and I thought that since it was my birthday, she would be a little more open to going out with more people than just she and I.. Well, this was before she was diagnosed as having PTSD, from certain oppressions she experienced from male and female governmental figures, and anyways, she was really scared of meeting new people. So she didn't want to do it that way, and she got all crazy on me via texting saying that me calling her a spoiled brat was a hate crime, lol.. She was acting like I was against her (remember she is a little nuts) just because I wanted to have some other friends present for the birthday party, and she decided to claim that me calling her a spoiled brat (oh wait I called her a dumb bitch too) was all because of her sexual orientation. It was a fucking fight and it had nothing to do with her choice in genders to love, lol..
So anyways, I see what you are getting at, that certain people may feel more oppressed than others, based on how they commonly feel, and can't separate from the true motive of the crime from their own delusional version of reality.

However, this comes down to grand jury indictments.. And I wish that more states used this method, for capital crimes at least, in every instance.
I can also see how some prosecutors might abuse the system by trying to tack on extra charges just to get a conviction. The more charges, the guiltier the person seems to a jury, and in this day in age of political correctness, it seems like people are almost *and unfairly* expected to convict based on an arrest for certain crimes..

So anywhoo I understand the sentiment there, but I really think that ANYONE can be convicted for anything based on the prosecution, police, forensics, etc, teams making mistakes or obstructing justice, or adding convoluted and unneccessary charges.. I think that we have a jail happy country, here.. which is very VERY sad.

An interesting little fact, though- which weighs heavily on my mind- The US makes up only 5% of the population of the world.. and yet 25% of the imprisoned people in the world are in the US. The US is ranked #1 in the world for the ratio of imprisoned vs free citizens.

Highest prison populations - The Boston Globe

Kinda brings new meaning to the term "police state".. in this "free" country of ours.