House Bill Provides Gays With New Rights

[bytor2112]

WASHINGTON — Gay victims of violence would gain new federal protections under a revived and expanded hate crimes bill passed by the House on Wednesday over conservatives' objections.

read here...Newsmax.com - House Bill Provides Gays With New Rights

[Hemidakota]

"I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle would be singing the same offensive tune if we were talking about hate crimes based on race or religion," she said, referring to Republican opponents. "It seems to me it is the category of individuals that they are offended by, rather than the fact that we have hate crimes laws at all."

Agreed...it is time to stop thinking about this special group and focus on everybody.

[Soul_Searcher]

Agreed...it is time to stop thinking about this special group and focus on everybody.

That includes members bringing up stories like this, right? Why the focus?

[bytor2112]

That includes members bringing up stories like this, right? Why the focus?

Because it is a current event and because it is a ridiculous bill.......

[cofchristcousin]

Because it is a current event and because it is a ridiculous bill.......

I seriously don't know where I stand on hate crime laws. I don't think everything that any crime that happens to a protected person rises to the level of hate. But, there are areas where I can see higher penalties for hate crimes. Consider cross burning. Is that simple vandalism, or does the fear and intimidation a cross burning puts into a community call for higher penalties? It's not simple for me.

[DigitalShadow]

read here...Newsmax.com - House Bill Provides Gays With New Rights

Probably one of the few things I agree with you completely about is that hate crime laws are stupid. I have nothing against gay people though, I think this is equally stupid as any hate crime law against any minority group.

[Maxel]

I'm trying to learn more about hate crimes right now, but I have a question to float out there in case anyone else knows:

If a black man is assaulted (for whatever reason) and the assaulter has any kind of ties- no matter how faint- to any kind of hate group, does the crime count as a 'hate crime'? Or, can a black man claim it is a hate crime because of various insults that were used by his assaulter during the attack, and the assault be classified as a 'hate crime'? How rigorous is the process used to define what is and what isn't a 'hate crime'?

[Maxel]

I seriously don't know where I stand on hate crime laws. I don't think everything that any crime that happens to a protected person rises to the level of hate. But, there are areas where I can see higher penalties for hate crimes. Consider cross burning. Is that simple vandalism, or does the fear and intimidation a cross burning puts into a community call for higher penalties? It's not simple for me.

I think incidents like you stated- cross burning- should be regulated at the state level. You do raise a valid point.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm trying to learn more about hate crimes right now, but I have a question to float out there in case anyone else knows:

If a black man is assaulted (for whatever reason) and the assaulter has any kind of ties- no matter how faint- to any kind of hate group, does the crime count as a 'hate crime'? Or, can a black man claim it is a hate crime because of various insults that were used by his assaulter during the attack, and the assault be classified as a 'hate crime'? How rigorous is the process used to define what is and what isn't a 'hate crime'?

Depends on the particular hate crime statute--individual states have them, and there's a federal statute as well. As per Wikipedia (I'm too lazy to do any actual legal research on this right now), under the federal statute the crime has to be committed "on the basis of" the victim's race; so a tangential connection would not (I presume) be enough, in and of itself, to convict the perp.

I seriously don't know where I stand on hate crime laws. I don't think everything that any crime that happens to a protected person rises to the level of hate. But, there are areas where I can see higher penalties for hate crimes. Consider cross burning. Is that simple vandalism, or does the fear and intimidation a cross burning puts into a community call for higher penalties? It's not simple for me.

I think you can break hate crime legislation down into two categories:

1) Statutes intended to remedy an imbalance between the magnitude of the crime committed and the actual penalty currently inflicted by the law;

2) Statutes intended to provide an additional punishment to the perpetrator because he acted out of an especially reprehensible motive.

I can get behind the first type of legislation--I think CofChristCousin's cross-burning analogy falls here. I'm suspicious of the second type, which I think is basically a backdoor method to punish belief.

[Moksha]

Will the Church lobby against this bill?

[MissyP]

What if I attack a homosexual because I hate them for other reasons beyond their sexual orientation? I am of course a non-homosexual, so it obviously is a hate crime against them and has nothing to do with the fact that they just have a bad personality.

I don't know. Why not just make a standard for what is, or is not legal and make it apply to everyone instead of focusing on one group.

[Maxel]

What if I attack a homosexual because I hate them for other reasons beyond their sexual orientation? I am of course a non-homosexual, so it obviously is a hate crime against them and has nothing to do with the fact that they just have a bad personality.

This sentiment is what I'm worried about. It's not just homosexuals or any other specific group; it seems the entire country is now steeped in the victim mentality. Giving any person the ability to charge their offender with the extra charge of "they hate me and what I am!", in today's society, gives that person power unequal with that of his/her peers. The idea that this is some sort of "equalizer" is, in my opinion, laughable- the only time something like this should be needed is against the courts when they don't give someone his/her fair trial based on the factors listed in the bill.

That's the reason I'm still researching hate crimes a little, and why I asked how easy it is for a crime to be classified as a "hate crime".

Edited May 3, 2009 by Maxel

[Churchmouse]

It will soon be, the only crime that isn't a hate crime will be when a white straight man assaults another white straight man.:)

[a-train]

You know, I've never heard of a 'love crime'. When someone is violently treated, could this ever be anything but a hate crime?

If I rob a man, should the court consider the reasons for my needing money? Perhaps if my reason is good enough, I'll get a lighter sentence? But if my reason is a bad one, I'll get a heavier sentence?

The purpose of the judicial branch is NOT social programming. Why do we have so many problems in the courts? Idiotic, self-indulgent, so-called 'liberals', 'progressives', and their friends the conservatives with no understanding of the purpose of government have decided that all branches of government are suited to the task of their omnipotent and benevolent social planning. Thanks to them, the United States which constitutes around 5% of the global population, also constitutes around 25% of the incarcerated global population.

Now the courts are not only to determine guilt and issue a sentence in accordance with the law, they are to determine whether the criminal is a proponent of any particularly repugnant intellectual fallacy for which the court should award an additional penalty. Right of Conscience is of no concern to these autocrats. They believe they know the mind of a man and have right to change it by any means necessary.

-a-train

[Dravin]

It will soon be, the only crime that isn't a hate crime will be when a white straight man assaults another white straight man.:)

Are they the same ideology? :)

[AngelLynn]

Hate Crimes...

Isn't that every crime.

Most violent crimes are done in hate. Can you find one crime not done in hate or malice to another human being?

Cain slaying Abel, do we define that as a hate crime?

[Dravin]

Can you find one crime not done in hate or malice to another human being?

Jaywalking? :)

That isn't of course what you are talking about, I doubt you'll ever get a comment like, "I was gonna go to the crosswalk, but then I found out most of the drivers were X so to piss them off I crossed the street right then and there. White Jaywalking power! *pumps fist*"

Sorry, I'm easily amused.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Dravin
Fixin' tags.

[Churchmouse]

Are they the same ideology? :)

They will both have to be conservatives. It will be a hate crime to assault a liberal.

[hankpac]

A hate crime is easily defined as one committed due solely because of what the victim IS, rather than for what he has. Steal from someone, simple or aggravated theft. But steal from him because he is gay, or black or whatever reason and it is a "hate crime"

rape someone, and it is rape. Rape someone because they are black: hate crime. burn someone's house down, that's arson. Burn it down because he is a Mormon, well, hate crime.

don't play games with words, when you really know better.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

How can motivation be determined beyond reasonable doubt? Moreover, can stricter sentences imposed to curb what is termed hate crime really be said to reduce such felonies? Are all crimes of violence crimes of hate? Is the violent initiation of force against another human being more crucial than the belief system which justified the attack? Should members of offending ideologies be preemptively institutionalized--either in mental health wards or prisons? (One imagines how satisfying it would be to rout-out the KKK. At the very least, these people need intense therapy.) If adherence to an ideology instigates unlawful aggression, doesn't that system of thought deserve extinction?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Kawazu]

Burn it down because he is a Mormon, well, hate crime.

What if the arsonist was homosexual, (hypothetical example not intended to infer condemnation), and the Mormon actively campaigned for Prop. 8? Hate crime? (The arson had nothing to do with the fact that the victim believed Joseph Smith saw God in a forest.)

[Moksha]

Originally, Utah did not endorse the Martin Luther King Holiday, instead choosing to go with "Human Rights Day". I only mention this because the arguments against trying to deter violence toward Homosexuals is eerily similar to the arguments of the Utah legislature in rejecting a celebration day for the Reverend King.

.

[Maxel]

Originally, Utah did not endorse the Martin Luther King Holiday, instead choosing to go with "Human Rights Day". I only mention this because the arguments against trying to deter violence toward Homosexuals is eerily similar to the arguments of the Utah legislature in rejecting a celebration day for the Reverend King.

I don't follow you. Could you explain a bit more?

[Moksha]

I don't follow you. Could you explain a bit more?

Sure. The argument was that he did not deserve special singling out for a special holiday honoring his accomplishments or merit. Perhaps being a bit out of touch with the contemporary milieu of the entire country at that time (we do have our own Planet Utah after all) the legislators failed to appreciate the amount of healing and recognition that African Americans experienced when Dr. Martin Luther King was so honored.

Likewise, it is easy for those who have no contact with homosexuals or appreciation for the degree to which they have been victims of violent crime to argue against stiffer enforcement of a policy to lessen their problem.

When one sees the needs of others strictly from their own vantage point, instead of walking a mile in the shoes of their brothers, failure to recognize their pain and suffering and lack of desire to do what is necessary to help can occur.

Sorry if my observation was too obscure. I wonder if I had been thinking of the analogy of otherwise good citizens of Israel passing an injured man on the wayside, but never the less ignoring him, would have made more sense. However we need not worry about his eventual fate, since a Samaritan stopped and lent assistance.

Now you know the rest of the story...

:)

[Maxel]

Sure. The argument was that he did not deserve special singling out for a special holiday honoring his accomplishments or merit. Perhaps being a bit out of touch with the contemporary milieu of the entire country at that time (we do have our own Planet Utah after all) the legislators failed to appreciate the amount of healing and recognition that African Americans experienced when Dr. Martin Luther King was so honored.

Likewise, it is easy for those who have no contact with homosexuals or appreciation for the degree to which they have been victims of violent crime to argue against stiffer enforcement of a policy to lessen their problem.

When one sees the needs of others strictly from their own vantage point, instead of walking a mile in the shoes of their brothers, failure to recognize their pain and suffering and lack of desire to do what is necessary to help can occur.

Moksha-

I was afraid your comment was reflective of what you've described. I do appreciate you taking the time to describe your comment, and understand that voicing one's opinion amidst opposition is difficult. I've never lived in Utah, so I don't know if what you're describing is the problem with anyone you know, and I'm aware of the idea that Utah Mormons are highly insulated and sheltered. That being said...

The idea that someone cannot grasp the principles of a matter because someone has not been directly affected by said manner is foolish. The fact that you want to paint us all as unknowing and/or uncaring is particularly damming to (what I assume to be) your own position. This bill isn't instituting "stiffer enforcement" of a policy, what it's doing is opening a path for any crime committed against a homosexual to be classified as a "hate crime". There is nothing in the bill that I see about policing the courts to make sure cases regarding crimes against homosexuals are executed with absolute fairness; this is not an "equalizer"- this is a tool to set homosexuals above heterosexuals in terms of prosecution. The wording and scope of the bill is too dependent on the popular ideologies and social issues of the day.

No one is saying that homosexuals should be treated unfairly- only that they should be treated fairly (i.e., the same as everyone else). Would you have the government give preferential treatment to homosexuals? If your answer is "yes", would you mind if they gave preferential treatment to Mormons? If your answer is "no", then you need to realize the actual effects this bill will have will not be to level the playing field- this bill affects and gives preferential treatment to certain players (the victims of crimes), not the playing field (the courts). If homosexuals are the victims of crimes that they do not receive just compensation for despite going to court, then the problem lies in the courts, not in the law- unless the law gave preferential treatment to one certain group of people. The regular justice meted out to offenders of the law should be enough to encourage people to avoid harming any specific groups of people.

The idea that any group needs special government help above and beyond that given to other groups is also foolish. There needs to be provisions in place by the government so that the government itself does not treat any of its citizens unfairly, but the idea that government needs to punish anyone for their beliefs is against the foundational principles of America. Sorry, but we don't legislate beliefs or conscience. The courts take action against actions, not ideas- even harmful ideas that eventually cause the infringement of rights. When such an infringement takes place, the courts step in and pass judgment on the infringement itself, not the ideologies fueling said infringement. When the government passes judgment on moral philosophies, we are one step away from a state religion. You wouldn't want that, would you Moksha?

Frankly, I'm tired of being told I can't understand [enter issue here] because I'm not familiar with the real-life application of the issue. This kind of argument is foolish and false, and I find it mostly used in the realm of issues regarding homosexuals. It seems to be the last line of defense for someone who knows, somewhere deep down, that they're wrong.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Maxel