With the House passing H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (by a 249-175 vote), gay groups are cheering. I guess the White House is too; the President had urrged Congress to pass this bill.
While I don’t share the view of social conservatives that such legislation could target churches, I do share the concern of libertarians, particularly legal scholars, who don’t like this bill because it targets thought. It enhances penalties for violent crimes not on their degree of violence, but on the thoughts of the attacker.
If someone beats you up because he hates your sexuality, gender, religion or ethnicity, his punishment is greater than if he beats you up because he doesn’t like you personally, hates your hair color, social standing, appearance or outfit.
While gay groups cheer today a bill that will make little difference in anyone’s life (I have yet to see any research showing that such laws deter violent crime), they should be working harder (as at least one gay group is doing) to repeal a law which has an adverse impact every day gay men and women eager and willing to serve and protect our nation.
The Democratic Congress has delayed consideration of legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). The passage of Hate Crimes legislation and the delay of DADT repeal is just a sign of the Democrats’ attitudes toward gays. A lot of symbolism, very little substance.
Repeal of DADT could make a real difference in the lives of a good number of gay Americans while increasing the pool from which our armed forces can draw recruits. Hate Crimes laws do little more than make people feel good that Congress cares about them.
We should all be very suspicions of legislation whose primary goal is to make people feel good.
UPDATE: This legislation is more problematic than initially indicated:
HOUSE APPROVES FEDERAL HATE-CRIME EXPANSION BILL. Jacob Sullum comments: Aside from the usual problems with hate crime laws, which punish people for their ideas by making sentences more severe when the offender harbors politically disfavored antipathies, this bill federalizes another huge swath of crimes that ought to be handled under state law, creating myriad opportunities for double jeopardy by another name.
Did you happen to catch Rep. Virgina Foxx’s contribution to the debate? Such a shame, especially when Matthew Shepard’s mother was in the gallery.
And if someone plans to beat you up, like really plots and thinks about doing it for days, the punishment is greater than if they just beat you up because they didn’t like the way you looked at them.
And the amount of violence inflicted could still be the same. Oh noes!
The passage of Hate Crimes legislation and the delay of DADT repeal is just a sign of the Democrats’ attitudes toward gays.
And what is the GOP attitude toward repealing DADT?
So under this so-called “hate crime bill,” can we finally prosecute Ted Kennedy for a hate-crime against women?
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
Regards,
Peter H.
#1 – “Did you happen to catch Rep. Virgina Foxx’s contribution to the debate?”
No, but I’m sure it was a home-run if it got under your wig and you had to comment about it.
“Such a shame, especially when Matthew Shepard’s mother was in the gallery.”
Why – because she’s trotting out a dead son every so often? I wonder how 9/11 widows and families feel, since they were the victims of the ultimate “hate crime.”
Regards,
Peter H.
“It enhances penalties for violent crimes not on their degree of violence, but on the thoughts of the attacker.”
you mean like the difference between first-degree murder and third-degree murder?
You will notice that the measure which broadens the power of the federal government is the one the Dems are passing.
Their attitude is simple: To hell with ending this government’s discrimination against homosexuals; we have to grab some more power!
* * * * *
torrentprime (at #3):
That is entirely irrelevant. The Democrats are being discussed. It is fair to discuss and criticize one party without having to compare it to another.
* * * * *
Erik (at #2):
I suppose you think yourself very clever. If so, you suffer from delusions of grandeur.
The difference between a premeditated and an unpremeditated crime is an objective difference. Distinctions are being made based on the nature of the crime. That is a far cry from criminalizing certain motives for crimes — which is exactly what hate crimes laws do.
To both torrentprime and Eric, just let me say:
If this is all you could think to add after reading Dan’s most sensible post, you should have put your heads back up your rear ends (where you are obviously in the habit of keeping them) and said nothing.
No, bob, you idiot, that isn’t what he meant, and you damn well know it.
Please see my comment above to Eric. It applies equally well to you.
Dan, my husband shares your concern and I have always puzzled over that logic. Not sure if you’re a lawyer but I know you went to law school… surely you know just as well as I do that we do consider people’s thoughts in the context of criminal offenses. Only it’s called “motive”. We also incorporate such considerations into upward and downward departures during sentencing. I have long felt that calling hate crimes legislation an exercise in “thought” control is a neat rhetorical trick that conveniently ignores a long standing tradition in American jurisprudence. I still respect the honesty of your belief — if I didn’t, I wouldn’t respect my own husband — but I do think it is based on a flawed premise.
The Thought Police have arrived!
Obama and Democrats get more Orwellian every day.
Does anyone really think that a person who commits a violent felony against someone for being [fill in the blank] will be dissuaded by the possibility of a little extra time in the pokey?
Matthew Shepard’s killers committed a capital crime. The threat of execution didn’t make them change their minds so I don’t think a hate crime law would have made any difference.
People were quick to condemn Texas (and GWB) for lack of hate crime laws after the murder of James Bird in Jasper. Yet two of the three perps were sentenced to death (in Texas, that means something). A hate crime statute wouldn’t have deterred them either.
The biggest problem with hate-crime laws is their selective enforcement. There are many notorious cases where whites have been brutally murdered by black criminals who were not charged with a hate crime (whereas a white criminal murdering a black person often gets a hate crime charge).
Without special laws, prosecutors, judges, and juries already have the right to factor motive and circumstances into verdicts and sentences.
Wondering if GOProud! is going to have any public comments about Virginia Foxx.
Uh..last time I checked there were less than five GOP Congressional cosponsors of DADT Repeal. Out of over 200 Congressmen and Senators. I know Illeana R-L was one. Are there any others?
Frankly, I’ve never seen degrees of crimes having an affect on deterrence, but more about the type and length of punishment. There are many laws that apply to special circumstances to the base crimes in order to increase punishment. For example: there are many places where punishments are harsher for crimes/murders committed upon member of law enforcement. Based on the comments here of people who oppose hate crimes, does that mean there should be no special circumstances just because of the job a victim may hold? In Wyoming, murder is considered first-degree if it is pre-meditated or because it occurs during robbery, arson, sexual assault, resisting arrest, child abuse, or committing another murder. Wow, lots of special circumstances there.
As far as Virginia Foxx is concerned, after watching her speak I’m sickened. Regardless of the actual reasons, 2 people planned in advance to rob, torture and brutally murder another person, yet she refers to it as “unfortunate incident”. She’s also seems to be unaware that the convicted killers attempted to use a “gay panic defense”.
She’s also seems to be unaware that the convicted killers attempted to use a “gay panic defenseâ€.
It is always amusingly ironic how gay-sex liberals use a crime in which the perpetrators received the full punishment of the law WITHOUT a hate-crimes statute in place — to argue how hate-crimes laws are necessary because juries and judges will never punish people without them.
Wondering if GOProud! is going to have any public comments about Virginia Foxx.
Wondering if Tom in Lazybrook will have any public comments about what his precious Obama Party fully supports and endorses.
I have one; I don’t care what Virginia Foxx says. I don’t support hate-crimes laws because the ones that cover all Americans are good enough for me. Gay-sex liberals like Tom in Lazybrook who see themselves as gay first, Obama Party second, and Americans somewhere around tenth may differ in opinion.
#5: LMAO!!! If have been a reliable libertarian commenter on this board and have met GPW on several occasions and you make some idiotic statement about my comment as if I’m a liberal.
You even admit that you never read what she said before you made the comment!
Virginia Foxx called the gay portion of Matthew Shephard’s death a “hoax”. It was a irresponsible comment and I stand by it.
North Dallas Thirty, how’s that gay-sex conservatism coming along? Still incapable of monogamy? Still adding thirds and fourths in the bedroom?
And BTW, you may continue to refer me (*as you’ve done in other threads*) to knowledge of your gay-sex conservative hook-up buddy/”partner” AND to your repeated claims of fidelity … but for Queen ND30 (much like Queen Gertrude) “the lady doth protest too much.”
BTW: you never answered my recent question regarding the eventual arrival of marriage in The Golden State. *When* that arrives, may I assume that you and *yours* will NOT seek unioned status?
This will be my working assumption given your repeated opposition to governmental sanction of same-sex unions … but then again, being a gay-sex conservative and therefore prone to hypocrisy, anything is possible for Queen SanFran Well-Over-30.
I agree with the very good comment by Erik (#2) above. It is common in the criminal law for the state to make distinctions among crimes of equal violence and to impose stricter penalties for crimes against specific groups or crimes that derive from motives which are deemed to have deleterious societal impact. Erik mentions one example. Others would include crimes against police, crimes against government officials executing their duties, crimes against minors, terrorism (i.e., violence committed for political motives), and crimes committed for financial gain. To single out hate crimes as somehow unprecedented is only to display an ignorance of the law.
As far as the legislation being all symbolism and no substance, I note that Gaypatriot offers no evidence to substantiate that claim.
Also, would it kill the Gaypatriot to at least acknowledge some of the ridiculous claims by the opponents? These include the assertion that the legislation would require the release of murderers convicted of non-hate crimes and would protect child molestors. I mean, if you want to have any credibility with the undecideds of this world, you should at least acknowledge reality and condemn the garbage that came out of the mouths of GOP reps today.
This stuff is pandering.
They just need to come out with the “everyone but straight white dudes” protection act.
We have entered the age of the thought police. Actually, the interpretive police. Far worse.
Kevin – I don’t think you can equate “special circumstances” with “hate crime” based on the victim’s race/gender/orientation.
The special circumstance relates to what the perp did, not who the victim is. Murder of a peace officer may be a special circumstance because the murder is committed against an agent of the state engaging in his/her sworn duty. I don’t think the special circumstance would apply if the officer was not engaged in his duty (e.g. killed in a mugging while not working).
In the other cases, any death occurring as the result of a felony is 1st degree murder. E.g. if you’re a suspect in a robbery and you kill someone while being pursued by the police, it’s 1st degree murder even though you didn’t plan the homicide in advance (an “accident” if you will).
In Wyoming, the death of Matthew Shepard was 1st degree murder even though the killers didn’t pull a trigger… Shepard died as a result of other felonies (assault & battery, kidnapping).
My basic problem with hate crime statutes is that it’s not equal protection – we’re all supposed to be equal before the law. A violent crime committed against my mom* is every bit as heinous to me as any example you might come up with.
(* God help anyone who tries… mom carries a Glock and knows how to use it. She gets mad first, scared later.)
CR #9 – Please see CLB #7.
Sorry, CLD #7.
geez. filtered. twice.
SoCalRobert –
The hate crimes law does not enhance penalties just because a victim is a member of a protected group. The requirement is that the crime be motivated by hostility toward the protected trait. So if a perp attacks someone for being gay (or for that matter straight), the enhanced penalties kick in, regardless of whether the intended target is gay. Conversely, if a perp attacks a gay person for some other reason, the enhanced penalties don’t apply. Any perp can be subjected to enhanced penalties based on his or her motives and conduct. And the victim can be of either sexual orientation, either gender, or any race. Enhanced penalties could even apply if your mom was attacked, provided that the motive was one of hate. There is no equal protection issue.
Of course, you can argue that a crime motivated by racism or homophobia is no worse than one motivated by robbery, jealousy, etc, but that is a different issue than equal protection.
Texas already had “hate crime” laws.
Seems to me that if the liberals in Washington truly gave a damn, they’d support concealed weapons permits.
I’m glad to see that tom and bob and Erik have come out in support of the firemen who had their tests thrown out because the result was too white.
I’m also glad to see that they’ve come out in opposition to the city that’s appealing the sexual harassment penalty from the greek-island-lady’s making her people march in the pride parade.
Oh wait, I forgot, bob’s a big fan of the fascist movement restricting freedoms. Maybe he thinks I should wear the big yellow star of David like the man he wants the president to emulate was a fan of.
livewire: when you want to have an adult conversation, you let us know. in the meantime, you might want to think about laying off the crack in your cornflakes. try sugar.
Bill (at #17):
I take it, Bill, you didn’t read my reply to Erik at #7.
If you will look at that comment you will notice I said nothing about it being unprecedented for the law to “make distinctions among crimes of equal violence.” I also said nothing about it being unprecedented for the law to distinguish crimes against government officials or minors.
What I said in criticizing Erik was:
All of your examples — save perhaps one — have to do with the objective nature of the crime. A crime victim is a minor or he isn’t. A crime victim is an official of the government or he isn’t. Said offical was stopped from executing his duty or he wasn’t.
Terrorism — violence committed for political motives — is an act of war. When it is treated as such of course it is handled differently.
As for crimes for financial gain, that alone is the only example where motive itself, as opposed to the crime itself, would play a role. However, I doubt that is the case. Financial crimes are different in nature than crimes based on hatred or anger.
Like Eric, you have failed to notice how hate crimes laws criminalize certain motives and take no notice of the objective nature of the criminal offense. This is what supporters of hate crimes laws must do if they are to in any way counter the objections of opponents. (That is why I accused Erik of keeping his head up his arse.)
You really need to read my comment at #7, Bill! I dealt with this in my answer to torrentprime.
Just as it was fair for Dan to criticize the Democrats without mentioning the Republicans, it is also fair for him to criticize hate crimes law without mentioning any of the arguments against it made by others. (You will notice he did criticize the arguments made by the religious right, however.)
Much that is very silly has been said about hate crimes legislation by people on both sides of the issue. Dan (nor anyone else) need not go through all the foolishness in order to make convincing arguments of his own.
In fact, Bill, given that you bring this rather silly point up after ignoring Dan’s rejection of religious conservatives concerns, it seems you are more interested here in venting your liver at Dan than in making any sensible point.
CR (at #9):
Motive is considered with regard to criminal offenses in many ways; the determination of criminal intent is the most obvious. Considerations of motive, however, are not the same as singling out certain motives as criminal offenses in and of themselves. (When certain motives get you additional penalties, the motive itself has become another criminal offense.)
As for upward and downward sentencing, that can occur for many reasons, such as a consideration of just how dangerous the offender is to the victim (and perhaps others.) It is perfectly fair and proper for a judge to take the offenders motive into account here, but this is not what hate crimes laws are about. Not in the slightest. If you think it is, you have seriously misunderstood.
Hate crimes laws, as I’ve said repeatedly, treat certain motives as so evil as to be deserving of being crimes themselves. That is why these motives are the source of the extra punishments, and not the underlying assaults against persons or property themselves. This fact is the source of conservative and libertarian objections to these laws.
PS: ILoveCapitalism, thank you for referring CR to my original comment.
Kevin (at #13):
Since my skepticism of the place of hate crimes law in a liberal democratic nation should be obvious from my comments, I will answer your question, Kevin.
My answer is no, there should be no special circumstances regarding a crime just because of the job a victim may hold.
Taking notice of a victim’s job, such as the example of a government official, is looking at an objective fact of the crime itself; it doesn’t require worrying about how the offender perceived the victim. However, in so far as making this distinction ends up criminalizing the motive rather than the act, it is a bad idea.
Also, as SoCalRobert noted at #19, “it’s not equal protection” to place certain job holders in a privileged position as crime victims.
I dealt with the issue of premeditation at #7. As for the special circumstances murders you note, again we have an issue of “distinctions … being made based on the nature of the crime.” Motive plays no role here.
The issues of felony murder and special circumstances involving a murder have nothing to do with the debate over hate crimes law.
this is addressed to all thelittleletterpeople or the littleletterpersonwithmanyaliases:
Is North Dallas Thirty guilty of a “hate crime” for speaking out against you? Is he guilty of a “hate crime” for speaking out against “hate crimes?” Could you double up on him and go after him for 1st degree hate crimes?
Some obscure reporter hack got caught “twittering” about her hope that Michelle Malkin would be shot. Let’s see the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Clown Court take on the “hate crime” thoughts of a liberal. (You hold your breath, I’m too busy.)(Oooops! A hate crime there: you would die of apoplexy if you did what I “ordered” you to do.)
I can see a whole new industry in the making, led by John Edwards who made a baby with a babe while his wife is dying of cancer. (Hate crime material?) Anyway, there will be all manner of hate crime lawyers and psychologists and expert witnesses for both sides. They will play to the jury until the jury hates everyone in the courtroom.
I am also wondering about gangs who maim and kill each other in prison. We know it will happen when we lock them up together. Shouldn’t the state be guilty of a hate crime for putting them in peril under lock and key?
You littleletterpeople have already pegged Virgina Foxx as a hater. She should be hauled before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Henry Waxman should hold a full nostrils up investigation of her connections with groups that skirt the rules of political correctness and she should be expelled from membership. Right?
You can read Lord of the Flies for more guidance in constructing your Brave New World.
Funny how bob, who a few weeks ago was boasting of his great intellectual superiority and being a published author, is reduced to petty insults and an inablity to make an arguement when his love of fascism is pointed out.
“You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”
BTW, Thank you CLD, you articulate a viewpoint similar to mine, in a way that is more direct than I seem to be able to do today.
#28 – CL Dave, your posts are excellent. However, here’s one little thing that the TITS* seem to be forgetting: nobody ever PROVED that the motive behind the Shepard incident was motivated by his orientation!
For those of you who don’t believe anything on this board unless it comes from a non-conservative source (hello gillie, boob, Tom, Kevin), here you go:
On ABC’s “20/20” back on November 26, 2004, host Elizabeth Vargas ran a report in which a number of figures tied to the case – including the prosecutor – were interviewed, and made a credible case that Shepard was targeted by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson not because of anti-gay sentiment, but because McKinney was high on methamphetamines, giving him unusual violent tendencies as well as a desire for cash to buy more drugs.
Vargas not only found that a meth high can lead to the kind of extreme violence perpetrated against Shepard, but that McKinney had gone on to similarly attack another man – who was STRAIGHT – and causing a skull fracture, very soon after his attack on Shepard. Additionally, McKinney’s girlfriend and another friend of McKinney’s even claimed that McKinney himself has bisexual tendencies, although McKinney himself denied it.
And in case you need a link (hello Nutso), here it is:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1
So as far as these two perps committing a so-called “hate crime,” it looks as though that explanation doesn’t wash. Shepard was not targeted because of his orientation; he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Regards,
Peter H.
(*TITS – Trolls-in-Transit. Also because they are all acting like boobs.)
Thank you for the link Peter.
But bob’s refusal to support the actions of those fighting discrimination (unless they’re in his own special group) show how he’s immune to facts.
There are incidents where people got lenient sentences because people did not believe the crime was serious to warrant the full sentence. How about the murder of Sean Kennedy, a 20 year old gay man who died in 2007 after a night at the bar. The guy who murdered him only got 3 years sentence. THAT IS WHY we need hate crime laws. Its disgusting how certain parts of our country have very lenient sentencing.
Link please, Matt?
And the same circumstances that got him 3 years is supposed to be worth more because he was gay?
Maybe instead of hate crime statutes, we should be able to appeal the sentencing by the state to the federal courts. I know mandatory minimum sentencing is not a good thing take a look at Ramos and Compean.
There is a difference between certain parts of our country where people will get fair justice or unfair justice.
ILC and CLD: interesting. I just skimmed through the bill and I have to acknowledge the distinction you’re making. It was me who had a flawed understanding of the law. In my defense, I do believe there are state hate crimes laws and bills that treat it as a sentencing enhancement rather than seperate crime, but it looks like this bill does indeed create a seperate offense. (still disagree with y’all but happy to admit when I’m wrong on a point.) later.
The Livewire and Peter H,
I am glad you appreciated my comments, and I thank you for your kind words.
#37 – Matt, Matt, Matt…dude, what is in that bong of yours? Let’s examine your most recent posts, shall we?
“Maybe instead of hate crime statutes, we should be able to appeal the sentencing by the state to the federal courts.”
Actually, kiddo – they DO. At least in my home state of Texas they are.
If a felony case is appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the court of last resort for felonies), and the court upholds the conviction from the district court, the case can then be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which may or may not accept it, thereby affirming the state supreme court ruling.
A further Lexis-Nexus check shows that all 50 states and DC can have state civil and criminal cases appealed to the US Supreme Court, as part of both Article III and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Strike one. Next:
“There is a difference between certain parts of our country where people will get fair justice or unfair justice.”
Really? Name one example. Provide evidence to your statement.
Granted, all 50 states and DC have different applications of laws, but that is how it is set up via the Tenth Amendment – in other words, the concept of FEDERALISM.
In a country as broad and diverse as ours – you know, the “diversity” that your side of the aisle likes to spew out as often as possible, but never really uphold – it is the only practical way to resolve both civil and criminal disputes. Why would someone in Massachusetts be expected to be treated the same in Texas, and vice versa? Answer – because it is the state LEGISLATURES that create state laws and statutes, especially in criminal cases.
Why do you suppose Megan’s Law is not being adopted by all 50 states? Would a federal version of Megan’s Law be practical? Of course not. It would federalize what would normally be a state issue and run contrary to the Constitution. (Same thing, BTW, with a federal marriage amendment since marriages – like other contracts – are the sole dominion of STATES.)
Strike two. And finally, the kicker:
“I know mandatory minimum sentencing is not a good thing take a look at Ramos and Compean.”
Aside from your awful punctuation skills (there should be a semicolon after “thing”), you are confusing apples with oranges. Ramos and Compean were unjustly charged, tried and convicted because they killed a Mexican drug dealer who had first tried attacking them, did not report the incident and later buried the body.
Although the two border agents were merely doing their job (as testimony showed that they were intent upon seizing the drug lord until he began firing first and they responded in self-defense), it cannot be compared to a gay guy who is murdered simply for supposedly being gay. Which, by the way, was not the motive behind the Shepard incident as I have previously explained.
And until you provide the link to your above assertion, it remains pretty suspect and without merit. So your point is null and void.
Incidentally, the last straw that broke the conservatives’ back with GWB was his refusal to grant Ramos and Compean a full pardon and instead merely commuted their sentences on his last day in office – in other words, the chicken way out. I am still seething over it.
So – strike three. You’re out. Thank you for playing, now hit the showers.
Regards,
Peter H.
“Aside from your awful punctuation skills (there should be a semicolon after “thingâ€), you are confusing apples with oranges. Ramos and Compean were unjustly charged, tried and convicted because they killed a Mexican drug dealer who had first tried attacking them, did not report the incident and later buried the body.”
Um, Peter?
Unless I’m way off (admittedly a possibility) Ramos and Compean didn’t kill the guy. He got shot in the running gun battle.
Unless Johnny Sutton whipped up a high level cleric to cast speak with dead to have him testify at trial, he’s very much alive. More’s the pity.
Other than that, you’re in the black with Matt’s statements
#41 – Livewire, you are correct. I was thinking about US Border Agent Nicholas Corbett’s case in which he was accused of murder and summarily charged:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446927,00.html
Mea culpa.
However, the fact remains that my argument is still valid – the border agents were doing their job, and it cannot be compared to the alleged murder of a gay man. It is still an apples-to-oranges issue.
Thanks for the correction.
Regards,
Peter H.
CR,
In the spirit of civility, I wanted to thank you for your concession to ILC and CLD on the bill we’re discussing. I’ve had to make a retraction or two in the past of misattributing quotes, and it’s always humbling. It’s the mark of a man to admit a mistake in a public forum.
We may not agree on some issues, but I thank you for being civil.
Peter,
NP. We all make mistakes (see above). I figured something got crossed since you’re good about providing facts and citing articles.
Unlike most (non-classical) libs, we have to keep each other honest 😉
We do everyday, which is precisely why nobody asks you.
He’s also bragged about being in the top 1% of income earners, but doesn’t seem to be able to afford a clue. Nor does he seem inclined to share his wealth with those less fortunate wishing to improve themselves.
Still waiting on a new truck.
CLD, exactly.
Notice the very name of the thing we’re discussing – “hate crimes”. The “hate”, real or imagined (i.e., subjectively perceived), becomes a crime in itself, to receive extra punishments from the law. A subjective emotion, in and of itself, is now a crime alongside the real (or objective) crime.
That has nothing to do with analysis of motive in determining the level of criminal intent (and hence the nature of the crime). It criminalizes an emotion… or to say it another way, it criminalizes social and political views (real or imagined). Since thoughts are involved in both of those things, it’s what people mean when they say that hate crimes law criminalize thought. But I’ve learned something from your explanation: it’s the subjective aspect (the criminalizing of a subjectively felt/perceived emotion, namely “hate”) that make these laws ghastly and wrong.
CR, thanks.
No it ain’t, Matt. Even taking your description of the case exactly as given, it would still only be an example of why we need better murder laws, prosecutors, juries and judges.
#49 – And yet, ILC, liberal utopians like Matt still won’t be satisifed because the jury will return a verdict in keeping with state criminal laws (which in some states is pretty lenient), and then there will be hell to pay from the Perenially Indignant Groups (PIGs).
Murder is murderm with varying degrees already taken into consideration (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter etc.) based upon that state’s laws.
It is quite disgusting how the left is using a murder for cheap political gain. But then again, what else is new?
Regards,
Peter H.
This thread is getting long in the tooth and I doubt there is much to add. I did want to address one point from “Classical Liberal Dave” which was so ignorant that it deserved some belated attention.
As to terrorism, i.e., crimes motivated by political objectives, he stammers:
“Terrorism — violence committed for political motives — is an act of war. When it is treated as such of course it is handled differently.”
CLD terrorism is a crime. It is codified in the US Code and in many state criminal codes. It is regularly prosecuted as a crime and the motivation is an element of the crime. With the rise of Al Qaeda, a foreign army comprising thousands of foot soldiers, we wisely chose to treat some terrorists as armed combatants and to treat 9/11 as an act of war. But virtually all other terrorist acts (e.g., the Weather Underground, FALN, Oklahoma City, the Fort Dix plot, the Lackawanna Six, etc.) have been handled under the criminal code. In each case motive was part of the crime and the potential or resulting punishment was greater than would have been the case had the identical crimes been committed with other motives.
This thread is getting long in the tooth and I doubt there is much to add. I did want to address one point from “Bill†which was so ignorant that it deserved some belated attention.
No, it is an act of war. I don’t doubt that it is codified as a crime, also, and that U.S. domestic terrorists are prosecuted in the criminal system. But terrorism is not an ordinary crime; it is an act of warfare by the terrorist against the whole society, as well as the State, and foreign terrorists captured in foreign countries have previously been (and morally ought to be) considered enemy combatants – albeit unlawful combatants.
Getting back to the original point – special rights versus equal rights – how many people here have heard of Jesse Dirkhising?
Anyone?
Let me elaborate.
Dirkhising was a 13-year-old boy in Arkansas who died after a horrific sexual crime that much of the national media ignored. Why? Because the boy’s accused killers were gay.
Dirkhising was bound, drugged, sodomized and raped for five hours before he died in 1999. In 2001, a jury convicted both Joshua Brown, then 23, and his lover, Davis Carpenter, then 39, of rape and first-degree murder and sentenced the pair to life in prison. Although both cases were appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the high court upheld the original convictions in 2003. The pair is still behind bars.
Yet the case received little attention in the national media. Critics said that is evidence of pro-gay bias, noting that news organizations gave extensive coverage to the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was hung on a fence post by two straight men and left to die.
According to Wikipedia, in the month after Shepard’s murder, LexisNexis recorded 3,007 stories about his death compared to only 46 in the month after the Dirkhising murder.
(Bias? What liberal media bias? But I digress.)
Now, think carefully. Especially our TITs here.
Would the Dirkhising case be considered a hate crime since it was perpetuated on a minor by two gay men?
Think VERY carefully before you answer.
Regards,
Peter H.
Oh, and before I forget, in case anyone feels the need for proper documentation (hello, Nutso Lover), here it is:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter, I couldn’t read past the first few paragraphs, it was so sick. So I still don’t know enough to absolutely answer your question:
Though hate had to be involved, on some level.
Speaking in a very general way, a huge problem with “hate crimes” is (again) that hate is often in the eye of the beholder. Here is another story and question.
Most people know about the Holocaust, and that the German word for Jews is “Juden” (pronounced yoo-den). The singular is “Jude” (pronounced yoo-duh) When an anti-Semitic bigot wants to make a Jew feel bad, he’ll call him that, meaning the Jewish person should have been killed in the Holocaust. In the summer of 1968, British police investigated as what we today would call a hate crime, a graffiti vandalism incident where someone spray-painted “Hey Jude” on a wall in London. The Beatles song had *NOT* come out yet, so nobody in the general public had that in mind. Was it a hate crime?
And BTW, you may continue to refer me (*as you’ve done in other threads*) to knowledge of your gay-sex conservative hook-up buddy/â€partner†AND to your repeated claims of fidelity … but for Queen ND30 (much like Queen Gertrude) “the lady doth protest too much.â€
Indeed I will, JR, because you serve the extremely useful purpose of illustrating the sort of behavior that the gay community fully endorses and supports.
These include the assertion that the legislation would require the release of murderers convicted of non-hate crimes and would protect child molestors.
Given what gay liberals fully support and endorse, I think we can safely say that hate-crimes laws protect child molestors.
Oh, that’s right, dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off” for adults is an “educational experience”, and anyone who opposes it is “close-minded” and homophobic.
Uh..NDT, lets recap. You posted a link to Farrakhan as some sort of rebuttal to my request for comments from GOProud! regarding the comments of Congressperson Virginia Foxx. Last time I checked, Mr. Farrakhan was not an elected Democratic official.
Other points.
While ABC is generally mainstream, their 20/20 program is right of center. John Stossel is a conservative. And it shows in his reporting. 20/20’s assertions about the lynching of Matt Shepard have been completely debunked.
To those of y’all who are so committed to ‘libertarian principles’ when it comes to keeping existing hate crimes protections for other groups but keeping Gays excluded, I ask you this: Has any Republican opponent of adding Gays to existing federal hate crimes laws introduced legislation to remove religion from existing federal hate crimes laws? Just curious.
Hate Crimes protections are important, especially in my native state of Alabama, where straight man shooting Gay man in the back of the head (murder) = 5 years in prison.
If someone goes out to rob anyone, thats a crime. If someone goes out with the purpose of attacking someone because they are Gay, then all Gays are potentially targets. It happens, you know that.
#58 – “Oh, that’s right, dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off†for adults is an “educational experienceâ€.”
Well, for those unfit parents who do so, that’s probably the ideal future they expect for their little charges. After all, there’s only so far down you can go.
And since they are also probably pro-choice, I wonder why they didn’t make “that choice” and therefore spare those little kids the embarrassment and shame. Some people have no right to be parents.
Right as always, NDT.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter,
Great to see your comments in here. Your buddies in TG would be proud of your support of them and NDT.
Follow-up to #56:
No, the 1968 vandalism with the scrawled words “Hey Jude” wasn’t a hate crime, even though ANY reasonable person in Britain would have interpreted it as a reference to Jews and the Holocaust, the Beatles song having not come out yet. Why? Because the words were scrawled – that is, the act of vandalism was committed – by none other than Paul McCartney. He knew about the song, he knew it was coming out soon, and he wrote the words on the Apple building to promote the upcoming release. The anti-Semetic words involved simply had a different meaning for him. (And now today, for us.)