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

[Thiebear]

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, that TP could scare the neighbors.. and it might be coming back again next year.. TP is Terrorism by Burgolds...

[Burgold]

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.

It's interesting how this argument or at least the argument from each "side" is the exact opposite of the warrantless wiretapping argument from a year or two ago, isn't it?

You worry about potential abuses and decide that the additional protections can be lived without. I think the additional protection is worth the risk of potential abuse, esp. given a 40 year track record of Hate Crime prosecution in this country that hasn't shown frequent (or excessive) abuses.

[twa]

It's interesting how this argument or at least the argument from each "side" is the exact opposite of the warrantless wiretapping argument from a year or two ago, isn't it?

You worry about potential abuses and decide that the additional protections can be lived without. I think the additional protection is worth the risk of potential abuse, esp. given a 40 year track record of Hate Crime prosecution in this country that hasn't shown frequent (or excessive) abuses.

Yes it is a interesting comparison, funny that so many that don't trust a heavily restricted federal program welcome this with open arms:)

perhaps it comes down to who you fear most?

[sacase]

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

So when do we add Emo's and Goths as well as every other sub group in society?

I am not in favor of hate crime legislation at all. If a Crime has been committed then prosecute it.

However, this legislation does not suprise me. Look at the growth of law over the years, there is a reason why there are more American's in prision than in any other country. The criminal justice system is big business. I know this goes off on tagent, but think about it. If you get a reckless driving ticket your choices are this. Go to court, pay the fine, pay the court costs and very likely go to jail for a couple days OR Pay a lawyer, pay the fine, pay the court costs and not go to jail.

[techboy]

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).

This is a very salient point, and I tend to think that people that ask about the difference in sentence between manslaughter and 1st degree murder are pulling a rhetorical trick and conflating two similar, but not identical concepts, largely because we all tend to be a bit sloppy with our choice of vocabulary.

I am comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for intent (i.e., did a person intend to commit a crime or not).

I am not comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for motive (i.e. why a person commited a crime). These would, indeed, be "thought crimes".

On the other hand, I am persuaded by those that argue that a true hate crime is not just a crime against a person, but an act of terrorism against a group.

I think this is made most clear by the actions that spurred the laws originally, things like the KKK bombing churches and killing civil rights workers. Those acts were not just murders, they were terrorist acts against an entire community, intended to keep black people from voting and to keep Northerners from helping with the exercise of those rights.

Of course, in reality, that makes hate crimes not about motive, but about intent, in this case, the intent to terrorize a group of people.

So, in that respect, I have no problem with hate crimes legislation at all, and of someone intends to terrorize the gay community (or others outside trying to help the gay community), then these acts should be included in the legislation.

Of course, this means that I believe the application should be limited to acts which have the intent of terrorism. If a bigot picks a fight with a gay guy in a bar and beats the crap out of him, to my mind that's assault, not a hate crime. If, on the other hand, a group of teenagers goes looking for gays to beat up near places it is known they hang out, with the intention of driving those gays away, that is an act of terrorism, and should be covered under the law.

I have a suspicion the law is a little broader than I would like, though.

[Larry]

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.

Sticking with the parallels to the civil rights crimes, when:

Some people get murdered because they were registering blacks to vote.

Folks in their town refused to convict the murderer.

The feds prosecute the murderers for violating the civil rights of the people they killed.

The state's ability to prosecute murderers didn't go away.

This whole "it will override state's laws" / "it will cause double jeopardy" thing hasn't prevented other federal laws.

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."

1) In order to convict someone under this statute, the prosecution has to get the jury to unanimously agree that the defendant targeted his victim because he was a _____

Not that "he doesn't like _____". Not that "He used the _____ word". That he targeted his victim because he was a _____.

2) And as to a similar argument I see, no, I don't believe that the passage of this law will suddenly cause DAs across the country to immediately begin targeting every single (to pick the racial example) white guy for special prosecution because of his race.

DAs get elected. No, they're not suddenly use this law to begin intentionally prosecuting every member of the majority group of the people who vote for them.

[Burgold]

Of course, this means that I believe the application should be limited to acts which have the intent of terrorism. If a bigot picks a fight with a gay guy in a bar and beats the crap out of him, to my mind that's assault, not a hate crime. If, on the other hand, a group of teenagers goes looking for gays to beat up near places it is known they hang out, with the intention of driving those gays away, that is an act of terrorism, and should be covered under the law.

I think we're pretty darn close on this one, tb. When the hate act indicates a likely pattern of behavior that will continue to endanger society then it is one that needs to be dealt with a little more seriously.

I also am leery of the hate crime label being applied to non violent acts... although certainly Joanie loves Chachie spray painted on a school wall is much different than Die ___________ Die or a swaztika painted on a synogogue... but I think that it's that threshhold where the community is threatened and endangered more than an individual where the line lies.

But on the other hand, I support the Neo Nazis or the KKK's right to march, publish, and spew their hate filled propaganda much as I personally detest it.

[stupidmorals]

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.

I hadn't read that far into the thread when I posted, but, yes, it is some comfort to know (I had not) that this sort of legislation has been around for forty years without much abuse (people actually being convicted of hate crimes on flimsy evidence, not just everyone assuming the victim's ____-ness is why they were targeted).

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.

So revenge killings are better than demographic killings? "Sure, he mutilated the guy to death, but at least he didn't hate him.'

Okay, that was rather flippant. How about, how far must the offender go before it's a hate crime? If Carl hates gays, it is known that he hates gays, and Carl murders Joe, who is gay, do we know it was because Joe was gay? Maybe Carl just felt like killing someone that night (Carl isn't a very nice person) and Joe was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe Joe was picked instead of Fred (he was walking the other way at the time) because Joe is gay and Fred isn't. But really, Carl was going to kill someone that night, and he picked the gay guy just 'cause.

Okay, that was too drawn out. A known gay-hater kills a gay person. Is he charged with a hate crime, since we already know he hates gays? Or does something extra have to be done, like some sort of defilement, or writing "No More Gays" on the wall by the body?

If a known Jew-hater writes 'Get the hell out of town!" on a Jewish person's house, is it a hate crime, or must he write "Get the hell out of town, Jew!"?

I guess I'm asking if there must be an act committed during the crime which specifically targets the entire community of ____ people. Really, I don't mean it to be rhetorical, I'm asking.

Oh, and if a hate crime is worse because it targets an entire community of people, rather than the individual, why doesn't it fall under terrorism laws?

Or, if a hate crime is worse because of the likelihood the person will repeat the crime, should an essentially motiveless murder (I didn't have a reason to murder that guy, I just felt like it) be prosecuted on the same level?

Again, I have some qualms, so I'm not sure where to come down on this, and I'm asking.

[stupidmorals]

This is a very salient point, and I tend to think that people that ask about the difference in sentence between manslaughter and 1st degree murder are pulling a rhetorical trick and conflating two similar, but not identical concepts, largely because we all tend to be a bit sloppy with our choice of vocabulary.

I am comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for intent (i.e., did a person intend to commit a crime or not).

I am not comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for motive (i.e. why a person commited a crime). These would, indeed, be "thought crimes".

On the other hand, I am persuaded by those that argue that a true hate crime is not just a crime against a person, but an act of terrorism against a group.

I think this is made most clear by the actions that spurred the laws originally, things like the KKK bombing churches and killing civil rights workers. Those acts were not just murders, they were terrorist acts against an entire community, intended to keep black people from voting and to keep Northerners from helping with the exercise of those rights.

Of course, in reality, that makes hate crimes not about motive, but about intent, in this case, the intent to terrorize a group of people.

So, in that respect, I have no problem with hate crimes legislation at all, and of someone intends to terrorize the gay community (or others outside trying to help the gay community), then these acts should be included in the legislation.

Of course, this means that I believe the application should be limited to acts which have the intent of terrorism. If a bigot picks a fight with a gay guy in a bar and beats the crap out of him, to my mind that's assault, not a hate crime. If, on the other hand, a group of teenagers goes looking for gays to beat up near places it is known they hang out, with the intention of driving those gays away, that is an act of terrorism, and should be covered under the law.

I have a suspicion the law is a little broader than I would like, though.

Hell, and there you go, techboy just put all of my vaguely connected thoughts on the matter into one coherent argument, which I hadn't been able to form. Thanks for that.

[Burgold]

As I said, your questions are very much worth wrestling and honestly this isn't an easy one. There's a lot of gray.

I think generally there's two purposes to a trial. The first is to decide innocence or guilt (that is to protect the defendent), but the second is to protect society. Taking it away from "Hate" if we find a rapist who shows no remorse at his actions and actually expresses that the experience is one of excitement and satisfaction. Well, even if he is a first timer, you may just want to put him away longer because he is a danger to rape again.

If you find a guy who has killed an African American and within the scope of investigation find that he runs a blog saying that African Americans have caused all the woe in America and need to be exterminated and that it is the duty of good Americans to get rid of all the ________ _________ ____________. Then, you have to decide if the event is a murder or greater than a single event. And yes, in this case it might be hard. Even with Hate laws on the books and a history of arrest and blogging and FBI surveylance that guy who broke into the Holocaust Museum a few months ago was deemed someone who should be free in society. And he took advantage and acted again on his hate.

I think the courts have acted on the side of caution when it comes to Hate Crimes and I think they should, but the danger of an act not being single, but serial is one that ought to be taken into account in my opinion.

Not sure if I'm expressing it well as I'm just typing this off the fly.

[stupidmorals]

So when do we add Emo's and Goths as well as every other sub group in society?

I am not in favor of hate crime legislation at all. If a Crime has been committed then prosecute it.

However, this legislation does not suprise me. Look at the growth of law over the years, there is a reason why there are more American's in prision than in any other country. The criminal justice system is big business. I know this goes off on tagent, but think about it. If you get a reckless driving ticket your choices are this. Go to court, pay the fine, pay the court costs and very likely go to jail for a couple days OR Pay a lawyer, pay the fine, pay the court costs and not go to jail.

Damn, I sure do hate me some emos.

I think I'd say that traffic tickets and murder aren't in the same ball park; for one, traffic offenses are civil, not criminal, right? Although, I think I understand what you mean.

[mardi gras skin]

Thanks Techboy. That was an excellent post. I think I'm going to share that with a few friends.

[Henry]

Techboy,

That's a very good take and a very good explanation.

[sacase]

This is a very salient point, and I tend to think that people that ask about the difference in sentence between manslaughter and 1st degree murder are pulling a rhetorical trick and conflating two similar, but not identical concepts, largely because we all tend to be a bit sloppy with our choice of vocabulary.

I am comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for intent (i.e., did a person intend to commit a crime or not).

I am not comfortable with laws that have increased punishment for motive (i.e. why a person commited a crime). These would, indeed, be "thought crimes".

On the other hand, I am persuaded by those that argue that a true hate crime is not just a crime against a person, but an act of terrorism against a group.

I think this is made most clear by the actions that spurred the laws originally, things like the KKK bombing churches and killing civil rights workers. Those acts were not just murders, they were terrorist acts against an entire community, intended to keep black people from voting and to keep Northerners from helping with the exercise of those rights.

Of course, in reality, that makes hate crimes not about motive, but about intent, in this case, the intent to terrorize a group of people.

So, in that respect, I have no problem with hate crimes legislation at all, and of someone intends to terrorize the gay community (or others outside trying to help the gay community), then these acts should be included in the legislation.

Of course, this means that I believe the application should be limited to acts which have the intent of terrorism. If a bigot picks a fight with a gay guy in a bar and beats the crap out of him, to my mind that's assault, not a hate crime. If, on the other hand, a group of teenagers goes looking for gays to beat up near places it is known they hang out, with the intention of driving those gays away, that is an act of terrorism, and should be covered under the law.

I have a suspicion the law is a little broader than I would like, though.

I think this is actually pretty good. It covers all people equally not specific subgroups. This is much more applicable to protecting society as a whole. It protects a persons right to like or dislike whomever they want, while at the same time protecting society from domestic terrorism.

[Larry]

1) I want to thank those people who quoted techboy's post, because I missed it, and I wouldn't have seen it were it not for people quoting it.

Permit me to join the list of people agreeing with it.

2)

I also am leery of the hate crime label being applied to non violent acts... although certainly Joanie loves Chachie spray painted on a school wall is much different than Die ___________ Die or a swaztika painted on a synogogue... but I think that it's that threshhold where the community is threatened and endangered more than an individual where the line lies.

But on the other hand, I support the Neo Nazis or the KKK's right to march, publish, and spew their hate filled propaganda much as I personally detest it.

The way I distinguish the burning cross from "speech", is that the burning cross or the synagogue swastika, because of their history, are death threats.

I think the way the law that ljs quoted defines prohibited "speech" is "would a reasonable person have felt threatened".

And I don't have a problem with "reasonable person" standards. For example, I beieve that that's the standard that's used to determine whether something is assault, and for self defense.

[ace8842]

This is an assualt on free speech. In Canada, Sweden, and other countries, hate crimes laws, which are a violation of the 14th Amendment, perhaps the 10th Amendment, and push on the 1st Amendment, have led to hate speech laws. You can be punished simply for making a derogatory remark about a gay person, Muslim, or other groups. But some groups are more protected than others. There is no need for hate crimes laws, and the biggest hate crime of them all, Matthew Shepard, may have not been a hate crime at all, as ABC later did a report on how this was a drug deal gone bad and the two killers were on meth and needed an easy mark. That's not really the point, other than it is very difficult to determine the intent of people in a crime. Crimes just need to be prosecuted equally, but we can't have special protections for special groups. Hate crimes as a percentage of all crime are so small is it is ridiculous. This will be used in the future as a way to silence religious freedom of speech on the subject of homosexuality and to indoctrinate homosexual literature into public schools, with inability of people to speak out against it, even though it is supported by parents public tax dollars. Very disappointed in this bill.

[ace8842]

many of you have been brainwashed by the media into thinking Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. Did you know he knew his killers and had partied with them before, and his killers were on meth?

http://i.abcnews.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1

[Larry]

many of you have been brainwashed by the media into thinking Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. Did you know he knew his killers and had partied with them before, and his killers were on meth?

And therefore there are no cases of gays being assaulted by people who's intention was to go beat up a gay?

[twa]

And therefore there are no cases of gays being assaulted by people who's intention was to go beat up a gay?

There are no laws against assault?

I can understand the argument if jurisdictions are not prosecuting such,but there are better ways to address that issue imo.

And it would be better to address it...directly

[Madison Redskin]

There are no laws against assault?

I can understand the argument if jurisdictions are not prosecuting such,but there are better ways to address that issue imo.

And it would be better to address it...directly

Do you think that the sentencing enhancements for acts of terrorism should be repealed as thought crimes? Should terrorists simply be charged with murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, etc.?

Sorry if you already commented on the subject.

[twa]

Do you think that the sentencing enhancements for acts of terrorism should be repealed as thought crimes? Should terrorists simply be charged with murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, etc.?

Sorry if you already commented on the subject.

We talking domestic or international?

Kinda depends on how you define terrorist as well.:evilg:

Conspiracy and organized crime terrorists?

Are there national security issues?

Hate,like terror, comes in many flavors discernible only to different tastes..

Personally I dislike the linkage

[Madison Redskin]

Hate,like terror, comes in many flavors discernible only to different tastes..

Personally I dislike the linkage

Why do you dislike the linkage?

[Seabee1973]

11 years after Mathew Shepard. Glad it has finally happened.

Mathew Sheppard was a botched case from the beginning his case had nothing to do with what he was except when it came down to the prosecution of the guys that killed him.

Drugs are what fueled his murder.

[twa]

Why do you dislike the linkage?

Because hate crimes pale beside terrorism imo.

The only organized campaigns of hate/violence were targeted by the law and crushed.

Those that conflate the two do not understand the dangers from true terrorist imo.

[mistertim]

This is an assualt on free speech. In Canada, Sweden, and other countries, hate crimes laws, which are a violation of the 14th Amendment, perhaps the 10th Amendment, and push on the 1st Amendment, have led to hate speech laws. You can be punished simply for making a derogatory remark about a gay person, Muslim, or other groups. But some groups are more protected than others. There is no need for hate crimes laws, and the biggest hate crime of them all, Matthew Shepard, may have not been a hate crime at all, as ABC later did a report on how this was a drug deal gone bad and the two killers were on meth and needed an easy mark. That's not really the point, other than it is very difficult to determine the intent of people in a crime. Crimes just need to be prosecuted equally, but we can't have special protections for special groups. Hate crimes as a percentage of all crime are so small is it is ridiculous. This will be used in the future as a way to silence religious freedom of speech on the subject of homosexuality and to indoctrinate homosexual literature into public schools, with inability of people to speak out against it, even though it is supported by parents public tax dollars. Very disappointed in this bill.

Have you read any of the multitude of posts in this thread that refute pretty much every point you made there or did you just see the title of the thread and decide to write this paranoid diatribe?