I’m sorry, Pat. I’m confused. I didn’t realize this debate was of the “ring-toss variety.” How does this work? Am I just supposed to keep guessing different “reasons to oppose hate crimes legislation” until I hit one that you consider “good”? Am I flying blind or am I entitled to periodic “warmer”/”colder” hints? Is this your way of telling me that you’d rather play Battleship?

Sean, there are many good reasons to oppose hate crimes legislation. I just don’t believe that the slippery slope argument is a good one.

OK, go take it up with the Supreme Court and for that matter English Common Law, because your definition of “instant premeditation” isnt supported by any body of law in the world that I know of

AmericanElephant, I don’t pretend to be an expert in law, so I could very well be wrong. And it’s certainly possible that my recollection of what I heard is incorrect. But I did a quick google check, and on Wikipedia I saw that some states consider that premeditation could happen in “mere seconds.” Yes, it’s Wikipedia, so they may be wrong as well. Perhaps Sean knows.

with your universe, because I’m not in it.

Yeah, I’m quite aware of that. We are definitely in agreement there.

In the former, there may indeed be premeditation

OK, go take it up with the Supreme Court and for that matter English Common Law, because your definition of “instant premeditation” isnt supported by any body of law in the world that I know of, and I really cant argue with your universe, because I’m not in it.

Pat, thinking that government has a greater role in preventing the scenario above other than by swiftly arresting, trying, and sentencing the perpetrator (without regard to the sexual orientation of the victim and/or the perpetrator’s aversion to it), is what gave Canadians the VILE, ORWELLIAN, out of control Human Rights Commission.

I’m not so sure of that, AmericanElephant.

In the former, there is no premeditation, but there is a crime. The second is a premeditated crime. It is the action of premeditation, planning, deliberation and consideration that makes the crime worse.

In the former, there may indeed be premeditation. It only takes seconds, or less, to plan, deliberate, and consider that using one’s fists (or a gun or a knife, if you have one) would sufficiently kill or maim someone. I think it was jury duty that I learned that. And the latter is not a crime unless the person acted on it. Perhaps that’s what you meant.

“I hate gays” is a thought.

You continue to pretend it is the same as a thought. It is not. It is a behavior.

Yes, I agree with the two scenarios above. I think we also can agree that the behavior you described also requires thought. And we can also agree that those things, by themselves are not crimes, unless they are acted on. Yes, the latter behavior is worse, because it does involve plotting, etc. But let’s look at the former again.

Simply hating gay persons is not a crime. It’s a free country, and one can hate whomever he wants, if he is so inclined, even for irrational reasons. Simply having that thought is not a hate crime. What happens, though, in too many cases, is that hates leads to behavior, such as plotting to bash a person that is the object of their hate (decide to go to a gay bar and pummel the next guy that comes out).

whaa, whaa, whaa.

Or is that your rendition of some Peter Frampton?

Okay, AmericanElephant. I did use “premeditation” instead of “motive” in 39. My error.

Nice of you to own up.

But no, you still dont get the difference between premeditation and motive because you say this;

Perhaps you don’t understand that whether the motive is, planning is usually required to commit the crime.

Planning is not required at all. There are all sorts of crimes that are committed with no planning whatsoever. I don’t know, it may even be the majority of crime. Consider two examples:

1. You say something that angers someone, and they beat you to death on the spot.
2. You say something that angers someone, and they go home and plot to poison you and dispose of the body.

In the former, there is no premeditation, but there is a crime. The second is a premeditated crime. It is the action of premeditation, planning, deliberation and consideration that makes the crime worse.

“I hate gays” is a thought.

“I’m going to slip cyanide into Pat’s tea, then chop the body up into pieces and put them down the garbage disposal” is a behavior known as plotting, planning, and premeditation.

You continue to pretend it is the same as a thought. It is not. It is a behavior.

whaa, whaa, whaa.

Says the OhioCumCatcher when those mean Proles won’t bend over and bite on a pillow when their told.

It’s going to be a LONG, LONG, LONG decade for you horrible repugnants.

Is that all you can say in your drive-by hit pieces?

Thanks, AmericanElephant. But I am well aware of the difference. Perhaps you don’t understand that whether the motive is, planning is usually required to commit the crime. If a person simply hates homosexuals, but never plans to bash gay persons, (or does, but doesn’t act on it), there is no crime. Same with motive and premeditation for murder.

Leah, you can say it anyway you want. But in order for manslaughter to be murder, it involves a persons thoughts. Usually first degree murder involves careful plotting of another’s death, but it doesn’t have to. In fact, if one carefully plots one’s murder, but doesn’t go through with it, nothing illegal has occurred. It’s when the person puts thoughts in motion, the crime has been committed. Same is true for hate crimes. By the way, I’m not saying I support hate crimes legislation, I’m quite on the fence. My support for it would only be as a potential deterrent.

It doesn’t matter at all if the murderer hated gays or simply hated that individual person, or simply is a psychopath who likes to kill people.

Excellent point. But my point is that when I see a person oppose hate crimes legislation because it is punishing thoughts, ignore the fact that murder is doing just that. If your point is that in murder the thoughts aren’t necessarily classified to a class of persons, that’s fine. But murder does punish thought if the crime is actually carried out.

24.And what about the double jeopardy part of the equation.

Surveyguy, that may be so. But prosecutors have gotten around this for years, simply by trying the defendent a second time for the same crime, but with different charges and/or the federal government adds their own charges to the state’s charges.

Why it must be based on a federal law of sexual gender orientation, and not all human beings equally is where Orwell comes in.

Geena, again, I understand your not supporting hate crime laws, but I disagree with your Orwellian equality argument, at least if I understand the legislation correctly. When it comes to sexual orientation and hate crimes we are equal. If a person commits a crime against you because he hates straight people, that is a hate crime. If you are saying that, in reality, the additional penalty would not be pursued in this case, and only pursued when the victim is gay, then I’m in full agreement with you. If you’re saying that it is unfair, because more victims of hate crimes due to sexual orientation are gay, then we still are in an Orwellian world where straight people are more equal than gay people.

26.Pat, there’s a difference in the not sure of the right word, complexity? of the crime (premeditated vs crime of emotion vs random shooting) and the motivation (he’s rich, he’s gay, he’s in the way).
I don’t see a problem with the former, but I do with the later. To plot out the death of another human is worse than a loss of control. Why he plotted isn’t as irrelevant.

Livewire, “he’s rich, he’s gay, etc.” could very well be the premeditation of a crime, including murder. In other words, if a guy stands outside a gay bar, and waits for the first person to come out to kill, that’s murder in my book.

Call this what you will, but it ain’t bipartisan. In fact, I can’t find a roll-call vote on this in the Senate (not sure how they track the rider votes, if anybody–Chad, since you brought it up?–can find it, please post), but that they had to attach it as a rider to a must pass bill like Defense Authorization kinda tells me something about the supporters’ belief that it could stand up on its own. Don’tcha think?

No. It tells me that Democrats don’t want to attach their vote to anything associated with the term “Gay” and have to face their various constituents who are homophobes (I won’t name names, but we know which Democratic voting blocks voted yes on Prop 8, ensuring its passage).

You’re wrong about this being bipartisan.
Here are the facts:

House amendment vote (HR 1913):
Ayes: 249, Nays: 175
Republican Ayes: 18

Senate vote (on the Conference report):
Yeas: 68, Nays: 29
Republican Yeas: 9

Call this what you will, but it ain’t bipartisan. In fact, I can’t find a roll-call vote on this in the Senate (not sure how they track the rider votes, if anybody–Chad, since you brought it up?–can find it, please post), but that they had to attach it as a rider to a must pass bill like Defense Authorization kinda tells me something about the supporters’ belief that it could stand up on its own. Don’tcha think?

whaa, whaa, whaa. Is crying, bitching and moaning ALL you filthy republicans can do? How pathetic of you.

It’s going to be a LONG, LONG, LONG decade for you horrible repugnants. You deserve it though, for forcing bushco on the world.

Comment by buckeyenutlover — October 29, 2009

If I call duckflybutshover the “queen of queerlandia” and he breaks my neck, can he be charged with a hate crime because I am a filthy republican?

What the HELL does the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act have to do with National Defense!?! I HATE this kind of add-on gimmick. The Dems control both houses and the Presidency, yet supporters of the provision are simply too chicken to pursue this change in the open, and instead hide it in a bill that is virtually veto-proof.

Having lost a dear friend to a bashing, I do have an emotional stake in this. He was someone who was very at ease with being gay at a time when I was still learning how to get over the negativity associated with it. On the one hand, yes, a person who murders my non-gay brother in a robbery should not get less of a sentence than that person who killed my friend because he was gay. On the other hand, the person who murders my brother during a robbery would get more charges filed against him due to the robbery than the person who murdered my friend because he was gay.

BTW, the murder still a cold case and I doubt it will ever be solved.