FNC: Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime' Legislation

[Monrovia_Redskin]

I'm sure that black guy who was dragged behind a pick-up truck to his death was just a bar fight gone bad...it had nothing to do with him being black. I'm sure the guys that killed M.Shepherd didn't know he was gay either....

[Larry]

For the vandalism example, vandalism is usually treated as a misdemeanor, but the "hate crime" enhancement is one of the things which can elevate it to a felony, and this not at the judge's discretion afaik it's at the prosecuter's discretion.

And the jury's.

Remember, this law only applies in cases where a jury has ruled unanimously that the defendant targeted his victim because of his race (or whatever).

(IMO, this ought to be really hard to prove.)

[Larry]

Justice is not blind....now

if it ever was

This law has not changed that in any way.

Which is why you keep trying to hint otherwise, and steadfastly ignoring the repeated requests to support the claim you're making.

[Predicto]

Yeah, because that is my posting history. :doh: Reread through this thread, and look at who is for and against the legislation. Now, read Destino's position. Others are objecting to the legislation and making rational points. The responses are typical. There are several posters who insult the opposite position for no reason.

And you will notice that I have not posted my opinion on this legislation. I am not sure where I stand. I think the closest stance stated in this thread is Destino's, where I agree with the thinking behind the legislation but do not trust the Feds/Stat prosecutors to enforce the legislation fairly.

In reality, both sides are being rational in this argument.

You seemed to be inplying that one "side" is more prone to being insulting and that side is the liberals, and that if they challenge your expressed beliefs, they are being insulting. I don't agree.

Ask any mod on here. Both sides have people that are rude at times, but if any "side" takes the prize for the larger number of insulting, drive-by, shallow posts with no content, it isn't the liberals. I'm pretty sure of that.

[Predicto]

And this is my number one problem. Instead of making that assumption and saying it publically. Why not investigate and let the facts lead you in the correct direction.

If you start with the premise that it MUST be a hate crime, you probably will find the facts to support it whether they exist or not.

It might be a hate crime, it might not.

This I agree with.

[Destino]

No, but they shouldn't be legislated differently. TPing and spraying swastikas should both be vandalism, and/or destruction of private property. A judge should have leeway to set a different sentence for each, but there shouldn't be a mandated enhancement, and the law shouldn't distinguish. Any variation should be judge's discretion.

So then in your happy little world a judge on a bad day could treat a kid that TP'd a house the same way we would treat those that spray paint swastikas on synagogues?

This is where we simply disagree. Terrorism is different from random violence because of the effects it creates after the fact. Racist vandalism is different from TPing is different because of the effect it creates. I think this is plain as day to most people.

Also you strongly stated that the law shouldn't distinguish but never made a strong case for why it shouldn't. I think it should and I defend that position by the effects of the crimes being further reaching. You think it shouldn't why? Because you don't like it? Because you have a poor grasp on logic and think that it naturally creates a thought police state when clearly nothing of the sort has happened all the while hate laws have been on the books.

[Predicto]

by the way people, the federal "hate crime" bill has been around for quite some time- and is just now adding sexual orientation. I don't see any issues for the last 40 years- so I'm inclinded to believe the "outrage" is simply due to the "gay factor".

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin.

Enormous point. We have survived the last 40 years pretty well, overall. Adding gays to the list isn't going to topple the Republic.

[Perky72]

Allow me to point out that Virginia's death penalty (and pretty much all other death penalties, nationwide) were struck down for quite some time precisely because there were no specific, legislated, criteria for determining when enhanced punishment was specified.

Back then, the death penalty was applied whenever the jury voted in favor of it, with no specification for what they should consider.

The reasoning (as I understand it) was that by allowing the jury to make that decision, without any specific criteria establishing when it should or shouldn't apply, left the door open for it to be applied based on things unrelated to the crime.

One of the specific examples given, as I understand it, was Virginia's allowing the death penalty for cases of rape. In the entire history of Virginia, only 19 people had been sentenced to death for rape. And every single one of them was a black man, sentenced for raping a white woman.

Do you really have a problem with the legislature deciding to specify certain circumstances in which certain sentencing modifiers should be applied?

Good points, but yes I do. Mainly when the circumstance is either the extra-criminal motive of the offender (he did it for terrorism, or for bigotry, etc), or simply due to the victim being in a certain class. I do disagree that judge or cop-killings should be elevated to death penalty status merely because they hold a certain profession or social protection status.

Mainly for the death penalty (which I support), my reasons for granting it would be the suffering inflicted on the victim, and to a lesser extent the vileness or lack of remorse of the criminal. I think it's more deserving to give to a person who brutally rapes, tortures and murders a random civilian than it is to a person who kills a police officer in one shot. The political, ideological, or other motivations aren't a big issue for me. I'm more concerned with justice for the victim. Not how the crime affects society.

I'm not sure how I'd legislate such an enhancement, perhaps a "brutality" classification of the crime. In the past I've supported the DP for non-mortal crimes such as rape or torture, but I go back and forth on that. Maybe I see the primary purpose of the DP differntly than most--for me it's not prophylaxis so the offender can't recommit, or deterrance so others think twice about doing the same thing. The main purpose to me is justice (and yeah vengeance) for the victim.

Feel similarly on hate crimes, affects of the crime on society, or a deterrant example based on an increased sentence are way down my list of priorities. Deterrance of hate crime should be done through education and other policy, not through sentencing, imo. I'm just going to take a wild guess that continuing legal discrimination against gays does more to justify random gay-bashers (in their minds) than harsher penalties for violence against gays. Same with other protected classes in the past--violent discrimination has dropped a lot only after the classes gained equality under the law.

In some ways I see hate crime legislation similarly to current affirmative action, it's a rhetorical step backwards. Instead of treating each murder of similar generic intent the same, it acknowledges problems of racism and bigotry to the point of proactive legislation. It's a tacit or overt admittance that the country still has dangerous bigots, which it'll always have, but I think validating this by selective legislation is somewhat regressive.

[Predicto]

IMO the supporters of this law don't want evidence.

Well, IMO, your O isn't very compelling. You haven't backed it up with anything.

I'm a supporter of this law, and I always demand evidence. It's almost an obsession of mine.

[Predicto]

If I kill someone I get 5 years, for example. But if I killed that person because they were gay I get 15?? That's the craziest thing and dangerous IMO I have ever heard.

It's called "motive," and it has been a large part of our criminal law since the beginning of English common law in the 1200s. Motive has always affected the severity of criminal sentences.

[Madison Redskin]

Hypothetical:

Person A is a member of a neo-Nazi group. Person A drives to Howard University to go beat up a ******. Person A spots a black guy walking out of a library, jumps out of his car, and punches the black guy in the face.

Person B thinks an acquaintance is a jerk. Jerk makes a smart-ass comment to Person B. Person B punches the acquaintance in the face.

Should Person A and Person B receive identical sentences?

[Perky72]

So then in your happy little world a judge on a bad day could treat a kid that TP'd a house the same way we would treat those that spray paint swastikas on synagogues?

Well, the "bad day" part is a bit of a strawman. I don't advocate for biased or incompetent judges. But yes, judges certainly could and should treat a TP offender worse than a swastika-painter, depending on the case.

Let's say the victim of the TP incident is a girl who has a disease which causes incontinence and she's constantly ridiculed at school, and has survived a suicide attempt because of this. The intent of the TPers is to cause her mental anguish. Let's say the person who painted the swastika is a 7 year old who found a paint can and a book that contained what he thought was a neat symbol. Let's assume a jury found both guilty of vandalism because the letter of the law says they both are. I'd certainly be glad a judge has discretionary sentencing power in these cases.

This is where we simply disagree. Terrorism is different from random violence because of the effects it creates after the fact. Racist vandalism is different from TPing is different because of the effect it creates. I think this is plain as day to most people.

Sure it's plain. You're arguing those effects should be taken into account for sentencing. I don't think they should. If I did think they should, I'd think simple hate speech should be a crime as well, since it often has the exact same effects as hate speech + crime.

If a person bombs an abortion clinic because he was influenced by Fred Phelps, and another bombs one because he was influenced by another bomber, which influence should be given jail time and which shouldn't? Why would the distinction be based on only one committing a concurrent crime if the effect is the same?

Also you strongly stated that the law shouldn't distinguish but never made a strong case for why it shouldn't. I think it should and I defend that position by the effects of the crimes being further reaching. You think it shouldn't why? Because you don't like it? Because you have a poor grasp on logic and think that it naturally creates a thought police state when clearly nothing of the sort has happened all the while hate laws have been on the books.

It has happened for the criminals who were given additional time based on their thoughts (by thoughts I mean thoughts of bigotry, which in non-criminal cases is free speech) at the time of the crime. Not their intent of maliciousness, which other criminals without their thoughts also had and which the hate-crime criminal would already be charged with. Not their motivation of hate, which other criminals have had but not hated a protected class. Nope, they were given additional time for very specific thoughts--thoughts of bigoted hatred of a certain group of people.

I don't think the effects of a crime should matter much to sentencing beyond the effects on the actual victim. And I don't consider society to be a nebulous "victim". So that's another difference.

[81artmonk]

btw, is murdering someone with a gun more of a crime than murdering them with a knife or your hands?

Nope, it's all murder IMO. Doesn't make it any worse in my eyes is someone uses a gun over their hands

[81artmonk]

If you call someone a "female dog" or A-hole, is that less of an insult if you call a black person the N word? If not, then why can't we use the N word the same as we say ***** or *******?

IMO it's all name calling. However, certian minority groups would consider it worse.

That's not the point though, should there be harsher penalties for those who do things based on hateful intent. IMO no.

[81artmonk]

If you call someone a "female dog" or A-hole, is that less of an insult if you call a black person the N word? If not, then why can't we use the N word the same as we say ***** or *******?

The line is drawn where hate of protected groups begins. It's very simple. TPing a tree is not the same thing as drawing hate symbols on a synagogue. Do you find that a complicated distinction?

Well of course not, most on here would argee that playful tping isn't the same, and probably wouldn't be prosecuted.

But is there a difference in graphittiing a synagogue and graphittiing a synagogue with racial slurs?? IMO no. it's all the same.

[81artmonk]

by the way people, the federal "hate crime" bill has been around for quite some time- and is just now adding sexual orientation. I don't see any issues for the last 40 years- so I'm inclinded to believe the "outrage" is simply due to the "gay factor".

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin.

For the record I have been against it for as long as I've known of it. For me it has nothing to do with gays, but the legislation itself.

[Perky72]

Hypothetical:

Person A is a member of a neo-Nazi group. Person A drives to Howard University to go beat up a ******. Person A spots a black guy walking out of a library, jumps out of his car, and punches the black guy in the face.

Person B thinks an acquaintance is a jerk. Jerk makes a smart-ass comment to Person B. Person B punches the acquaintance in the face.

Should Person A and Person B receive identical sentences?

IMO yes, affect on the victim is the same, assuming the intent by both offenders was to injure the victim. If there's a difference in sentence or charge it should be in premeditation vs. spontaneity.

Another hypothetical:

Person A has always hated redheads since his mother was a redhead and he hated her. He wants all redheads to suffer or die. Person A drives to a park with the intent to beat a random redhead's ass. Person A jumps out of their car, runs over to a redhead, and punches her in the face.

What difference in intent is there between Person A here and neo-Nazi person A? Why should one be prosecuted as a hate crime but not the other?

[81artmonk]

by the way people, the federal "hate crime" bill has been around for quite some time- and is just now adding sexual orientation. I don't see any issues for the last 40 years- so I'm inclinded to believe the "outrage" is simply due to the "gay factor".

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin.

Well, IMO, your O isn't very compelling. You haven't backed it up with anything.

I'm a supporter of this law, and I always demand evidence. It's almost an obsession of mine.

Its very convienant to say that isn't it. Very empowering. What exactly am I suppose to back it up with but reasoned debate and my opinion?

This is philisopical issue, thus opinion is the ammo used to debate it.

[81artmonk]

It's called "motive," and it has been a large part of our criminal law since the beginning of English common law in the 1200s. Motive has always affected the severity of criminal sentences.

Ok than why not allow the judges decide the sentence based on motive like every other case. Why do we have to pass laws in essence, singling out certian ethnic groups or minority groups with special priviledges based on someones belief during the crime?

[Madison Redskin]

IMO yes, affect on the victim is the same, assuming the intent by both offenders was to injure the victim. If there's a difference in sentence or charge it should be in premeditation vs. spontaneity.

If the impact on the victim is all that matters, why should we care whether the crime was premeditated or not? By delving into the realm of premeditation v. spontaneity aren't we creating "thought crimes?"

Another hypothetical:

Person A has always hated redheads since his mother was a redhead and he hated her. He wants all redheads to suffer or die. Person A drives to a park with the intent to beat a random redhead's ass. Person A jumps out of their car, runs over to a redhead, and punches her in the face.

What difference in intent is there between Person A here and neo-Nazi person A? Why should one be prosecuted as a hate crime but not the other?

There is a huge difference. Aside from being called "ginger kids" redheads have not been the targets of countless acts of discrimination and violence. The historical context of the legislation, and real and actual trends in society, shouldn't be totally disregarded in this debate.

PS - We may disagree, but I sincerely appreciate that your posts are thoughtful and well-written.

[Monrovia_Redskin]

Somebody brought this up earlier, but I've had the same thought before too. Why is it that you're guilty until proven innocent if you have an ounce of weed on you? You are guilty of intent to sell if you have an ounce...end of story. Why does this guilty until proven innocent thing not apply to any other laws except weed and any other drug that might fall into that law. Nobody ever talks about it, but people are getting arrested and booked for being drug dealers with no proof.

[Madison Redskin]

Ok than why not allow the judges decide the sentence based on motive like every other case.

So you don't have a problem with judges considering the defendant's motives, you just don't want Congress to pass a law providing clear rules on the subject?

Also, why do you trust a judge to make that kind of determination? It seems to make sense to require a jury to unanimously decide that the defendant was motivated by hatred of someone on account of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[stupidmorals]

This thread has gotten rather long since last I looked, so please forgive me if I'm repeating someone.

Both are statements if intent. Of motive. The fact that they aren't the same motive is only important if you approve of one of the motives.

I don't think I would say that intent and motive are the same thing. Evidence that one intended to murder someone else (actually planned the action) does nothing to explain the person's motivation to murder that person (why they actually planned to commit that murder).

Of course, the legislation does nothing of the kind.

That's why the opponents of this legislation can't even express why they oppose it without changing what the law says.

We don't punish armed robbers for thinking about robbery. We punish armed robbers for committing armed robbery. Yes, the definition of armed robbery includes the fact that the action mush have been performed for the purpose of obtaining money. But it's not the motive that gets punished. It's the action.

Okay, I would like to go into whether the definition of armed robbery includes the motivation for money or not, but that's not really the issue. I think the issue is, if:

Guy A robs a bank because he wants the money, gets caught, and is sentenced to 20 years, and

Guy B robs a bank because the owner is _____ and it will ruin his business, gets caught, and is sentenced to 25 years,

then the motivation was a factor in the punishment.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know if the legislation would actually permit something like that to occur, or not. If it doesn't, then what does it do? If it just prohibits people from committing crimes against ____ because they are ____, but doesn't actually modify punishment or even add an extra charge (for which one would assume there would be additional punishment), then is it doing anything at all? Is it redundant legislation?

I'd agree with you there. I'd rather this be done at the lower levels.

OTOH, we both know that it never will be done at the lower levels, (in some places), as long as there's a political party that approves of it.

Do you mean to say that there is a particular political party that actually approves of gay bashing, lynching, etc., or that there are individuals which are predominantly associated with a particular political party (whether they have the party's approval or not) that approve of gay bashing, lynching, etc.?

The justification that I'd use to attempt to rationalize a good law being put at the federal level would be to claim that it's a civil rights matter. (Because it is. I see a lot of parallels between this and the not-long-ago-enough days when blacks would be assaulted for supporting civil rights, and lower jurisdictions refused to do anything about it.)

Yeah, this is probably the best justification I could think of, too. I suppose the problem would be, would the federal law supercede all lower jurisdictions abilities to prosecute under such conditions (counties/states which did pursue prosecution get overrun just as much as counties/states which did not)?

Also, was there legislation passed during, say, the 1960's which specifically prohibited assaulting black people because they were black? I guess I'm asking, since I don't recall one.

The law (at least as described) prohibits acts of violence against a victim, committed because the victim is a _______.

Why is this better than a law which prohibits acts of violence against any innocent? And if it is, what does it do differently in a case where violence was committed against an innocent, because the innocent person was a ____?

Calling the victim names may be evidence that the victim was targeted because he is a _____, but the law doesn't in any way prohibit name calling. It prohibits violence targeted against a group.

In order to convict somebody under this law (at least, as described), the prosecution has to get the jury to vote unanimously that the victim was selected because he is a _____.

Not "the attacker called him a mean word". Not "any time somebody beats up a gay".

If a bunch of leather-clad lesbians jump a football player as he's coming out of a bar and beat him up because they hate men, (and if the victim reports the crime ), then it's a violation of this law.

Yeah, I guess I'm worried about the same thing Destino (I think it was him) seems to be; that the law would be used by prosecutors eager to show they are tough on crime and _____-haters by tagging this offense on to any case possible, whether it is merited or not. After all, it wouldn't be difficult to convince people that "so-and-so is a ____-hater! We know because he called him a 'stupid ____' while fighting him."

I really haven't made up my mind on this, I just have some misgivings which have yet to be assuaged.

[Burgold]

I really haven't made up my mind on this, I just have some misgivings which have yet to be assuaged.

I think it's fair and that everyone should wrestle with these issues. If it is a comfort, as ljs pointed out, Hate law legislation has been on the books since 1968. To my knowledge, the abuses and victimization hasn't really ever come to the forefront in a substantial or frequent way. I'm sure as with all laws there have been individual cases of abuse, but innocent individuals are found guilty in many different types of trial. By and large, the Hate crime provisions are not excessively used and the fear people have of them seems misplaced.

In my mind, there is a difference between a premeditated murder against a stranger who happens to have a trait you dislike and a premeditated murder against someone who's done you wrong. I think in the former case, the murderer is a much greater threat to society, because there is a much greater liklihood they will continue to murder.

[twa]

This law has not changed that in any way.

Which is why you keep trying to hint otherwise, and steadfastly ignoring the repeated requests to support the claim you're making.

We shall see if it is abused, the only support you should need is human nature in predicting that occurance in the future....just as naming the law after Byrd is a direct emotional appeal as cover.

I have plenty of faith in that...the proof will have to wait.

This is like the mandated minimums in a attempt to address inequalities in justice...good intentions gone bad imo.