Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law!

[Immanuel]

I thought that in this nation we were all to be treated as equal under the law... in this case, we are not. If that asshole, kills me, my family will be lucky if he serves 7 years. If he kills my gay neighbor, he's likely to get life without the possibility of parole, if not the death sentence.

Immie

and this is why i feel this law is a crock of shit.....if a guy robs a 7-11 and shots the clerk dead for the hell of it he might 25 to life with time off for good behavior....BUT if he calls him an ethnic slur before he shoots him he then will get life without parole.....BULL ******* SHIT...he should get the MAXIMUM sentence because he killed a HUMAN BEING ....there should be ZERO tolerance for violence perpetrated against ANYONE....period....

There are many mitigating factors that come into play when prosecuting a crime. Pre-meditation, prior criminal record, age, intent.........now hate crime is added as an additional factor

What violent crime is not a hate crime?

Why play favorites with the families of victims that fit certain demographics and tell the families of those victims who do not fit into certain demographics that their loved ones, though just as dead, really didn't matter as much as the others?

Immie

 

[Barb]

and this is why i feel this law is a crock of shit.....if a guy robs a 7-11 and shots the clerk dead for the hell of it he might 25 to life with time off for good behavior....BUT if he calls him an ethnic slur before he shoots him he then will get life without parole.....BULL ******* SHIT...he should get the MAXIMUM sentence because he killed a HUMAN BEING ....there should be ZERO tolerance for violence perpetrated against ANYONE....period....

There are many mitigating factors that come into play when prosecuting a crime. Pre-meditation, prior criminal record, age, intent.........now hate crime is added as an additional factor

What violent crime is not a hate crime?

Why play favorites with the families of victims that fit certain demographics and tell the families of those victims who do not fit into certain demographics that their loved ones, though just as dead, really didn't matter as much as the others?

Immie

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.

 

[Immanuel]

There are many mitigating factors that come into play when prosecuting a crime. Pre-meditation, prior criminal record, age, intent.........now hate crime is added as an additional factor

What violent crime is not a hate crime?

Why play favorites with the families of victims that fit certain demographics and tell the families of those victims who do not fit into certain demographics that their loved ones, though just as dead, really didn't matter as much as the others?

Immie

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.

Smartass! Who asked you?

But, those are not the crimes we are discussing here either. We're talking about beating a man to death kind of crimes. Why should someone get a longer sentence for beating Bobbi with an I [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK6dMTtSmE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Phil Vassar - Bobbi With An I[/ame] than he would Bob the Redneck?

Immie

PS Man, that is the first time I have watched the video on that... It sure gives a different context to the song.

 

[Barb]

What violent crime is not a hate crime?

Why play favorites with the families of victims that fit certain demographics and tell the families of those victims who do not fit into certain demographics that their loved ones, though just as dead, really didn't matter as much as the others?

Immie

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.

Smartass! Who asked you?

But, those are not the crimes we are discussing here either. We're talking about beating a man to death kind of crimes. Why should someone get a longer sentence for beating Bobbi with an I [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK6dMTtSmE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Phil Vassar - Bobbi With An I[/ame] than he would Bob the Redneck?

Immie

PS Man, that is the first time I have watched the video on that... It sure gives a different context to the song.

You did

And we didn't specify "what kinds of crimes," as the premise of the argument was that no violent crimes were committed dispassionately. But they are, some of them.

From the song, "...so we live and let live..."

And if a redneck Bobby would live and let the Bobbi with an I live, to the point of advocating his rights in a song (and seeing the need to do so), it seems it is a relevant issue. As for why, see the definition of terrorism.

BTW, thank you for the vid. I gain more and more respect for country music every year.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Smartass! Who asked you?

But, those are not the crimes we are discussing here either. We're talking about beating a man to death kind of crimes. Why should someone get a longer sentence for beating Bobbi with an I [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK6dMTtSmE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Phil Vassar - Bobbi With An I[/ame] than he would Bob the Redneck?

Immie

PS Man, that is the first time I have watched the video on that... It sure gives a different context to the song.

You did

And we didn't specify "what kinds of crimes," as the premise of the argument was that no violent crimes were committed dispassionately. But they are, some of them.

From the song, "...so we live and let live..."

And if a redneck Bobby would live and let the Bobbi with an I live, to the point of advocating his rights in a song (and seeing the need to do so), it seems it is a relevant issue. As for why, see the definition of terrorism.

BTW, thank you for the vid. I gain more and more respect for country music every year.

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

 

[Harry Dresden]

There are many mitigating factors that come into play when prosecuting a crime. Pre-meditation, prior criminal record, age, intent.........now hate crime is added as an additional factor

its an additional Politically Correct factor....nothing more.....you commit a violent crime against another person....you should get the maximum sentence....all violent crimes are hate crimes....against people....period....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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......

 

[JD_2B]

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 *** 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.

The typical violent offender usually offends against someone they know. Most people do not go out looking for "insert slur of choice here" to beat down- and people who do this kind of thing, or are triggered to violence based solely on something like a cross, a star of David, the color of their skin, of what gender their lover is, HAS to be treated like an extremely dangerous "loose cannon"..

If you kicked your (Lets say Jewish) best friend's ass, and in the process, called him a "crazy Jew", and your best friend died as a result of you beating him up, it would not be considered a hate crime, because the motive was not that he was Jewish, but that he did something else which pissed you off to where you snapped..

Now, I think that one should still go to jail for 25 years or longer, as long as they have killed someone, anyone, and 10-15 yrs or longer even if it was unintentional.. and life if they kill more than one person.. OR if they kill one person with motives that would be considered unreasonable (and the act considered unprovoked) by the average citizen- such as race, gender, religion, sex preference, etc..

People who do stuff like this are just out of control..

 

[saveliberty]

I thought that in this nation we were all to be treated as equal under the law... in this case, we are not. If that asshole, kills me, my family will be lucky if he serves 7 years. If he kills my gay neighbor, he's likely to get life without the possibility of parole, if not the death sentence.

Immie

and this is why i feel this law is a crock of shit.....if a guy robs a 7-11 and shots the clerk dead for the hell of it he might 25 to life with time off for good behavior....BUT if he calls him an ethnic slur before he shoots him he then will get life without parole.....BULL ******* SHIT...he should get the MAXIMUM sentence because he killed a HUMAN BEING ....there should be ZERO tolerance for violence perpetrated against ANYONE....period....

There are many mitigating factors that come into play when prosecuting a crime. Pre-meditation, prior criminal record, age, intent.........now hate crime is added as an additional factor

These are not factors in prosecuting a crime. EVER. They are considerations in sentencing. None of you have hit on how this charge is going to be used in reality. The prosecutor adds the hate crime charge, which has a heavy penalty, to the charges. It makes it hard to not plea bargain the charge away and plead to the other charge or charges. Conviction rates go up with additional charges.

 

[Immanuel]

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 *** 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

 

[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 **** 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.

 

[theHawk]

Why not increase sentances for all violent crimes? Only raising them for "hate crimes" pretty much means if you commit a "regular" crime you get less time. With the double standards that exist we all know blacks or other minorities will almost never be accused of "hate crimes" against whites.


I'd much rather see a bill passed that puts pedophiles and child killers behind bars for life, or better yet death penalty for them.

 

[saveliberty]

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

 

[Immanuel]

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 **** 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 ***** 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

 

[saveliberty]

Amended to above: Billy Bob pleads guilty to avoid the hate crime charge, because he is afraid of facing life without parole. Billy Bob was innocent.

 

[Navy1960]

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 **** 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.

So for example, a man that kills his wife because he wants to be with another woman and does so in a brutal manner is not doing so out of hate? Or perhaps the neighbor who is upset with his or her other neighbor because they refuse to trim their tree's and takes a gun and shoots them because they have been mad at one another for years? Still further, the kids that take weapons into a school and kill many others kids because they have been teased and lash out, thats not hate either I suppose? 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? Was not justice served? I'm sorry but all these law's are , are restrictive speech law's and what they do, is attempt to criminalize speech. Let's take ffor example a church who according to tradition and according to Eric Holder, that teaches the bible that homosexuality is wrong then that church according to Eric Holder is guilty under this bill. When in fact ecen if you or I disagree with that church they should be allowed to teach the doctirine they have always taught. I find it more than a little interesting that so called liberals will run to strip rights from people and yet, defend their own rights as if the two are seperate somehow.

 

[Immanuel]

Amended to above: Billy Bob pleads guilty to avoid the hate crime charge, because he is afraid of facing life without parole. Billy Bob was innocent.

Not in my hypothetical he wasn't, but you make a good point.

Immie

 

[Steerpike]

So for example, a man that kills his wife because he wants to be with another woman and does so in a brutal manner is not doing so out of hate? Or perhaps the neighbor who is upset with his or her other neighbor because they refuse to trim their tree's and takes a gun and shoots them because they have been mad at one another for years? Still further, the kids that take weapons into a school and kill many others kids because they have been teased and lash out, thats not hate either I suppose? 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. I

Part of the logic with hate crimes laws is not simply that they crimes were done with 'hate' in the mind of criminal. The justification people give for greater sentences is that the crime victimized more than just the direct victim. So the argument is that if you kill someone because they're black or because they're gay, you've not only killed that victim but you've terrorized a group of people who will be in fear for their life based on sexual orientation, race, etc. So the crime has farther-reaching effects and therefore can be punished more.

The logic isn't flawless, but that's the basic argument.

 

[paperview]

... 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

 

[Navy1960]

So for example, a man that kills his wife because he wants to be with another woman and does so in a brutal manner is not doing so out of hate? Or perhaps the neighbor who is upset with his or her other neighbor because they refuse to trim their tree's and takes a gun and shoots them because they have been mad at one another for years? Still further, the kids that take weapons into a school and kill many others kids because they have been teased and lash out, thats not hate either I suppose? 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. I

Part of the logic with hate crimes laws is not simply that they crimes were done with 'hate' in the mind of criminal. The justification people give for greater sentences is that the crime victimized more than just the direct victim. So the argument is that if you kill someone because they're black or because they're gay, you've not only killed that victim but you've terrorized a group of people who will be in fear for their life based on sexual orientation, race, etc. So the crime has farther-reaching effects and therefore can be punished more.

The logic isn't flawless, but that's the basic argument.

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?