’)Civil rights advance under President Obama.
President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.
The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.
“thought crime bill”-Birchers
You are a great American, President Obama.
And a pre-emptive “fuck yourselves” to the trolls who will inevitably bitch about it.
Did Carrie Prejean tweet about like how this… destroys, like, America… so much now????
I hope so. Today is a great day for all Americans.
Jr: Exactly. They love bitching about how intolerant others are of their intolerance.
I hope transgendered individuals will be included in fact, and not just theory.
Taking it to the He-She’s in more ways than one, Frank? Save it for a Craigslist posting, will ya?
Paul_D,
Perhaps you haven’t been visiting OW that long, but I seem to remember Frank standing up for an transgender acquaintance.
Kudos to Frank.
Just curious, how would this bill have increased the punishment for either James Byrd’s or Matthew Shepard’s executioners?
And PRESIDENT Obama signs the bill on a day that the Washington Times – a paper whose daily circulation is twelve percent of the Post’s readership – prints yet another hysterical editorial about the White House’s assault on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
And Farris, I’ll answer your question with another: In a state where officials rush to execute innocent people, why are two of Byrd’s killers STILL ALIVE ON DEATH ROW MORE THAN A FUCKING DECADE AFTER THE CRIME??!!
I like your new blog layout, Mr. Willis. Very cool!
)
“And a pre-emptive ‘fuck yourselves’ to the trolls who will inevitably bitch about it.”
So here’s a post-facto “fuck you.” It’s terrible legislation that won’t prevent crime or violence. But it makes people feel better about themselves, which is the worst reason to make a law.
>But it makes people feel better about themselves, which is the worst reason to make a law.
Oh the painful irony of a lefty saying this, especially on this web site..
Paul D “He – She’s”, eh? How 20th Century of you, you barbarian…
It’s terrible legislation that won’t prevent crime or violence. But it makes people feel better about themselves, which is the worst reason to make a law…which is why I have decided to remain deliberately ignorant of the most basic facts and legal decisions relating to hate crimes laws because it allows me to retain the incoherent, irrational reasons for my opposition to the law.
Fixed.
“which is why I have decided to remain deliberately ignorant of the most basic facts and legal decisions relating to hate crimes laws because it allows me to retain the incoherent, irrational reasons for my opposition to the law”
You keep saying this, and you’re wrong Sparky. HCL is bad in theory (trying to analyze things as subjective as “hate”) and in practice they accomplish nothing (as you yourself admitted).
Andrew Sullivan is 100% correct on this one:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/no-more-matthew-shepards.html#more
But please, I await your spittle-soaked vituperations and your constant screams of “U DOESN’T UNDERSTANDZ ME!!!” It’s the only thing you’re good for, Fafaroo.
HCL is bad in theory (trying to analyze things as subjective as “hate”)
There you go again, Jaim. I cited a lengthy section of a document produced by the Attorney General of California explaining exactly what the process was for determining bias motivation and the rather larger body of legal decisions and scholarship available for attorneys and judges on the subject. And here you are repeating the same thing you said before in that thread. Like I said, Jaim, you choose to remain in ignorance on the subject.
…in practice they accomplish nothing (as you yourself admitted).
Wrong again, Jaim. You said there was no deterrence effect and, rather than agreeing with you, I said it didn’t matter if there was.
I also said that for the person spending an extra X number of years in jail because they were charged and found guilty by a jury of bias motivation in their crime, there’s a definite practical effect.
So once again you’ve displayed willful ignorance and dishonesty.
And nice appeal to authority there, Jaim, with Andrew Sullivan. I think I’ll stack the legal opinions of the Attorney General of California and dozens of other states against Sullivan’s any day.
For example, you guys keep pointing to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd cases as evidence that stiffer penalties are not needed. Yeah, well, Jaim, there are hundreds of hate crimes committed every year none of which are as high profile as those cases. The FBI reported 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007.
How many of them involved assault charges with less than life term sentences which could be extended if bias motivation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Oh and here’s an interesting set of facts you might want to aquaint yourself with:
So yes, Jaim, mandatory longer sentences for hate crimes would have a practical effect for the thousands of bias crimes that don’t become media frenzies–especially when judges are inclined to give lighter sentences because of infrastructure issues. But, of course, neither you nor Sullivan seem to be familiar with the bigger picture.
Here’s another real world practical example for you, Jaim, one of dozens of similar stories found at ADLs site:
Gosh, wouldn’t it have really sucked if these douche bags had to spend several extra years in jail for attacking two black guys because they were black? Wouldn’t that be a shame, Jaim?
At the same time, Sullivan overlooks several significant aspects of the federal law that also would have a practical effect on hate crimes. It increases federal funding to the states for reporting, investigating and prosecuting hate crimes:
Another practical effect of this legislation is that it would:
As someone who lived through the Los Angeles riots after the first Rodney King trial, I can tell you first hand what happens in a community when a crime against someone’s civil rights goes unpunished. It can be, quite, literally, explosive. In the Rodney King case, the Federal trial achieved convictions of the officers involved and went a long way toward cooling and healing seriously damaged neighborhoods and communities in Los Angeles. This is a good and practical result that this legislation makes possible in the case of hate crimes, Jaim. Or do you think the Federal government should not have stepped in to try the cops that beat King?
But please, I await your spittle-soaked vituperations and your constant screams of “U DOESN’T UNDERSTANDZ ME!!!” It’s the only thing you’re good for, Fafaroo.
And again with the whining, Jaim. Could you please stop with the whining?
“I also said that for the person spending an extra X number of years in jail because they were charged and found guilty by a jury of bias motivation in their crime, there’s a definite practical effect.”
Sheppard’s killers got life. So if there’d been existing HCL they’d get what, life +10 years?
Silly law, silly legislation.
“Gosh, wouldn’t it have really sucked if these douche bags had to spend several extra years in jail for attacking two black guys because they were black? Wouldn’t that be a shame, Jaim?”
Why not just prosecute under existing laws against, you know, stabbing people?
“in the Rodney King case, the Federal trial achieved convictions of the officers involved”
Those cops were prosecuted under HCL? Oh that’s right, they weren’t.
You seem to have confused verbosity with intelligence. And here’s a tip Sherlock, correlation does not imply causation.
“Could you please stop with the whining?”
That’s rich. Although it is kind of staggering that you could get through a comment with using the word “fuck” or the phrase “you aren’t worthy of respect.” My, you’re all grown up!
“Gosh, wouldn’t it have really sucked if these douche bags had to spend several extra years in jail for attacking two black guys because they were black? Wouldn’t that be a shame, Jaim? ”
No, what would be a shame is if the perps weren’t prosecuted vigorously for the initial crime regardless of who they stabbed. If you stab someone you ought to have the book thrown at you regardless of who your victim was. You shouldn’t get off easy if your victim doesn’t fit some prosecutor’s idea of a “special” victim.
“and Farris, I’ll answer your question with another: In a state where officials rush to execute innocent people, why are two of Byrd’s killers STILL ALIVE ON DEATH ROW MORE THAN A FUCKING DECADE AFTER THE CRIME??!!”
Just because you’re loud and obnoxious doesn’t make you less stupid. Why do you think it takes so long to execute someone in any state not just Texas? Because there is layer after layer of appeals that can be brought up by good lawyers. Good meaning effective stategists. I suppose you think it’s all some racist plot.
Lots of places wouldn’t have tried to execute Byrd’s killers at all. Without the need for any special federal laws creating special protected classes of citizens Texas was able to take a look at those guys and say effectively “That man’s life was sacred, what the hell were you assholes thinking? Actually we don’t care what you were thinking, you’ve crossed the line and you’re going to pay the ultimate price. And they did it pretty promptly. What better outcome could you possibly hope for? If Texas removed some of the red tape standing between seemingly endless appeals and execution liberals like you would have absolute conniptions.
Again I ask you, What better outcome could you possibly hope for?
Sheppard’s killers got life. So if there’d been existing HCL they’d get what, life +10 years?
Once again, you just repeated the exact same claim as I didn’t present you several reasons why it was a short-sighted, ridiculous argument to make. You didn’t even bother to address the very specific argument I made and the evidence I’ve presented.
Just for the record, Jaim, a hate crime is a charge tacked on to another charge. In case you didn’t know, people get convicted of multiple life sentences for multiple charges all the time.
Here’s an example of a guy eligible for parole for multiple counts of child molestation in 140 years:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/29/convicted-child-molester-gets-multiple-life-senten/
How silly! I mean who lives for 140 years? Amirite? That’s so dumb! And what if he lives to 160? ha ha on you dumb legal system!
You’re brilliant, Jaim. A real brainiac.
Why not just prosecute under existing laws against, you know, stabbing people?
Really, seriously? This is your come back? This is your argument? Has it not been explained to you enough that a hate crime charge is added on to an original charge such as attempted murder?
Do you not understand, then, that a person arrested for stabbing someone is prosecuted under existing laws against, you know, stabbing people and that only if they are found guilty of that charge can the hate crimes charge be decided and the penalties enhanced so that if a guy gets convicted of a bias motivated stabbing he might spend 15 years in jail instead of 10?
Do you really not understand how these laws work, jaim? Is that it?
Those cops were prosecuted under HCL? Oh that’s right, they weren’t.
Again, you really can’t be serious. You have to be kidding me. I never said they were tried under HCL. They were, however, tried under Federal civil rights laws, which are prosecuted by the Justice Deaprtment’s Civil Rights Division which also handles federal HLC prosecutions.
As I wrote above, the cops were found innocent on the state level and then found guilty on federal civil rights charges. The only reason why that was possible is because the federal government has jurisdiction over civil rights violations. This new federal hate crimes bill allows the same jurisdiction for hate crimes.
I think I was pretty clear on this point when i wrote: “This is a good and practical result that this legislation makes possible in the case of hate crimes, Jaim.”
But I thought for sure you’d get it when you read this section from a summary of the bill that it gives:
How could you not understand the practical effect on hate crimes prosecutions that this will have and the calming effect such Federal actions might have on communities terrorized by hate crimes unacknowledged or unpunished on a state level? Having lived through a three day riot because of a similar situation, I know I can.
You seem to have confused verbosity with intelligence. And here’s a tip Sherlock, correlation does not imply causation.
Now I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Correlation does not imply causation? When did I ever suggest any such thing?
Jaim, I really don’t know what to say. You’re doing exactly what you did in the other thread, deliberately ignoring the evidence presented to you and simply repeating claims that have long since been proven utterly wrong.
Every time I present you with new facts and more information you just shut yuor eyes tighter and shake your little fist faster.
You still really aren’t worthy of any respect here. You’re still a fucking moron. And you’re still one hundred percent, demonstrably wrong.
See, Amused, the following:
is a very clear example that you have no idea what you’re talking about on any level. Like Jaim you don’t understand or refuse to understand the language of HCLs, how they’re applied and what they mean. It’s just that simple.
You don’t like the laws, but you have no idea how they actually work. You’re basing your opinions about them on a fiction.
Oh man, Jaim, you’re going to love this. From the link about the convicted child molester above. He was actually convicted of 21 counts each carrying a life sentence. So get this:
How silly! Right? Stupid district attorney!
Fafaroo,
No, it is you who has no idea of what you are talking about on just about any level but a theoretical one. Hate Crime laws are a prime example of how charges are levied for political gain. At it’s core it substitutes the whim of the prosecutor for the rule of law. Much like affirmative action it denies equal protection of the law, in this case by increasing the value of a protected class of people’s lives at the expense of devaluing others.
It also makes a mockery of the idea of double jeopardy. There was talk at the time of the infamous Duke fake rape case that they should be brought up on federal civil rights laws even AFTER they were found innocent. It is people like you that our Constitutional is designed to protect us from. Well intentioned zealots with tunnel vision.
I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong but if memory serves me you were the one who was relentless in your wrongheaded reasoning on the Sodamayer fireman case. You quite literally can not see the forest because the trees are blocking the view.
Christ, your stupid truly burns. There are obviously good reasons to give people multiple life sentences but it just so happens that Sheppard’s murderers will never get out of prison even though HCL didn’t exist at the time for sexual orientation.
HCL tries to fix a problem that doesn’t exist when the law is working properly (i.e., murderers go to jail forever). If the system isn’t working, and I’ll admit that institutional racism is still a huge problem in the American legal system, HCL isn’t the answer. Making the system work as it should and getting rid of corrupt cops and incompetent judges would make a real difference, not a feel-good measure like an increase in HCL.
And I understand perfectly how HCL works. You keep bringing up that a murder would get a murder sentence plus the HCL sentence. And I’m trying to explain to you in the smallest words I can that this is wrong and unfair, no matter how much you wet your diaper over this.
Kudos Jaim, I am with you 100% on this topic.
Cool, some more groups of people that are apparently more important than me.
Cool, some more groups of people that are apparently more important than me.
Please name those groups, Buzz, and point to exactly where they are mentioned in the law.
All of those mentioned in the legislation.
And I’m trying to explain to you in the smallest words I can that this is wrong and unfair, no matter how much you wet your diaper over this.
Jaim, you just keep saying it’s wrong and unfair but you’re giving any reason why.
A hate crime charge is just like the difference between assault and aggravated assault, or intent to murder and intent to kill, charges.
Attacking someone with the intent to terrorize or intimidate them and others because of race, gender or sexual orientation is an entirely different kind of attack than simply attacking someone to rob them. HCL laws recognize that difference. This, of course, has been pointed out to numerous times with references to studies about the long term psychological impact of hate crimes not only individuals but on whole communities.
You guys keep talking about these laws creating a special kind of “victim.” And I keep asking you to name them. Because while you keep droning on that HCLs mean gays are more valuable than non gay, you can’t back up such assertions with recourse to the actual language of the laws. So, Jaim, Amused, Buzz, once again, please list all the “special victims” given special protection by HCL laws and cite the relevant sections of an HCL law to prove it.
Amused keeps bringing up conspiracy theories of prosecutors and judges condemning, I’m sure in his mind, innocent white men of hate crimes charges. What he fails to account for is that if there is no evidence of the initial crime, whether it’s assault or murder, then the hate crimes charges don’t even enter into it. No one can go to jail for simply hating some other group. They have to act criminally on that hate and their guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the hate crime charge even enters into it.
And as for Amused’s double jeopardy bitch, it’s entirely groundless because double jeopardy doesn’t come into play between state and federal jurisdictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States
So once again, another argument raised by Amused goes down quickly before the facts.
But I’m sure he’ll be back here again crying “double jeopardy” because he’s just that stupid.
Making the system work as it should and getting rid of corrupt cops and incompetent judges would make a real difference, not a feel-good measure like an increase in HCL.
Yeah, really? And how exactly do corrupt cops and incompetent judges stand in the way of punishing people for intending to terrorize whole communities if there are no laws against terrorizing whole communities?
If somebody is assaulted “because” they are gay, the perpetrator would receive more prison time that if they assaulted me just for the hell of it.
All of those mentioned in the legislation.
Name them, Buzz, Name all the specific groups mentioned in the legislation.
Trans-gendered people, for example.
Trans-gendered people, for example.
Really? Here’s the text of the law: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1105:
Quote me the section that specifically names “trans-gendered” as a special victim.
That link doesn’t work. In the meantime, answer me this… if it isn’t geared toward specific groups, why is it needed in the first place?
If somebody is assaulted “because” they are gay, the perpetrator would receive more prison time that if they assaulted me just for the hell of it.
Buzz, assaulting someone because they are gay is a terrorist act, intended to terrorize that person and the community at large.
If someone assaulted you because you are, I am assuming straight, they would also receive more prison time for the same reasons.
If a gay person is attacked just for the hell of it, their assailant would not be given more prison time.
Someone steals my wallet out of my pocket, that’s robbery.
Someone steals your wallet by sticking a gun in your face, that’s robbery with a deadly weapon, or aggravated robbery.
Aggravated robbery is a more serious charge and that person will be doing more jail time than my assailant.
But I’m still out a wallet. Am I being denied justice?
Than what?
That link doesn’t work. In the meantime, answer me this… if it isn’t geared toward specific groups, why is it needed in the first place?
So you have no idea what you’re pissed off about do you?
And try this PDF link:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1105is.txt.pdf
Than what?
Than if you were assaulted because you’re an asshole.
Heh, thanks for ending the thread.
Heh, thanks for ending the thread.
How so? How are you any less protected from assault or whatever because hate crimes laws exist? How?
Then what is the point?
The point, Buzz, is too punish people specifically for criminal actions aimed at a person because of their race, gender, sexual orientation and sexual identity.
Why?
Because such “bias-motivated crimes” have been found have far greater negative impact on individuals and communities than crimes not committed for bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
Now I have to ask you Buzz, do you have a race, a gender, a sexual orientation and a sexual identity?
Yes, you do. You have all of them.
So you’re protected under these laws just the same as everyone else who has a race, a gender, a sexual orientation and a sexual identity.
In other words, you too belong to the group of “special victims” that you’re complaining about.
No, it is you who has no idea of what you are talking about on just about any level but a theoretical one.
I also just have to point this out. Amused, there have been hate crimes laws on the books for 40 years, federal and state.
Presumably, then, if you weren’t just talking on a “theoretical” level, you could point to some actual abuse of hate crimes laws by “well intentioned zealots with tunnel vision.”
Otherwise, why are you offering up entirely hypothetical scenarios of such abuse (at least one of which was based on an entirely faulty understanding of double jeopardy in this country)?
Is this the right blog? I thought I was somewhere else. Maybe it was the theme change.
>Buzz, assaulting someone because they are gay is a terrorist act, intended to terrorize that person and the community at large.
>If a gay person is attacked just for the hell of it, their assailant would not be given more prison time.
Fafaroo, how do you objectively decide whether a crime falls on the “hell of it” side, or on the “intended to terrorize the community at large” side?
Fafaroo, how do you objectively decide whether a crime falls on the “hell of it” side, or on the “intended to terrorize the community at large” side?
The same way you prove anything in a court of law, Haplo. It’s up to the prosecutors to present evidence and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was in fact bias motivated. If they can’t do that, then no hate crime enhancement.
There have been a lot of hate crimes cases in this country, guys. Juries are regularly convinced by prosecutors that bias was involved and the intention was to “send a message.”
There have also been a lot of cases where hate crime charges were not proven.
If all that sounds too “subjective” to you, courts use “subjective” tests all the time to prove intent. It’s an established part of the legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal%29#Definitions
Give it up, guys. Fafaroo knows his shit on this topic. He is right. You are wrong. How much proof do you need? Are you reasonable people or not?
Fafaroo has cited case after case, link after link, and has proven his argument. He wins.
It’s amazing to me that some people can’t bring themselves to say, “Well, I guess you’re right. I never thought of that/I didn’t know that.”
I did that on this topic.
“President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Ammo sales still soaring.
Hey nutters, welcome to the civilized world. Kicking and screaming I know, I know.
“Give it up, guys. Fafaroo knows his shit on this topic. He is right. You are wrong. How much proof do you need? Are you reasonable people or not?”
I’ve seen nothing that argues against the fact that a) HCL leads us down a slippery slope towards thought crime and b) they don’t acually prevent hate crimes, which is probably the most important element out of all of this.
Yes, they’re on the books. That’s sort of the easiest point in the world to make, and making it ten times doesn’t mean they’re any less silly.
Yes, they’re on the books.
And have been for 40 years. That’s a mighty long, slow slope, Jaim.
Moron.
But the slipperiness of that long, slow slope cannot be underestimated!!1!ELEVEN!!!
If people having different ideas than you gets you so worked up you should really consider getting your own blog. You can have all the ideological purity you want!
If people having different ideas than you gets you so worked up you should really consider getting your own blog. You can have all the ideological purity you want!
Are you serious? Jaim, I’m beginning to think your schizophrenic.
Oh and Jaim, this isn’t about ideological purity, it’s about intellectual honesty. Typically when one writes “I’ve seen nothing that argues against the fact that” they follow it up with actual, verifiable facts.
It’s especially stupid to suggest that something is going to lead us down a slippery slope to anything, if that something has been in existence for 40 years and you don’t follow it up with a link to some example.
You know what I’m saying?
““Give it up, guys. Fafaroo knows his shit on this topic. He is right. You are wrong. How much proof do you need? Are you reasonable people or not?”
LOL, fafaroo is as wrong on this as he was on the Ricci case. Remember that one fafaroo?
What is the basic premise of the idea of double jeopardy Fafaroo? You think it perfectly fine to have the same act being capable of charged as multiple crimes or as you pointed out a state rap or a federal rap. By all means lets federalize all crimes then we can try them twice to our hearts content.
“if that something has been in existence for 40 years and you don’t follow it up with a link to some example. ”
Something can be a bad idea for 40 years. You screeching about it doesn’t change that fact.
Something can be a bad idea for 40 years. You screeching about it doesn’t change that fact.
You see, Jaim, this why you’re an idiot.
I’ve given you citations, references, cases etc. etc. to back up everything I’ve claimed and to answer every argument you’ve thrown out. I’ve even had to correct you on several occasions because you said things that we simply, factually inaccurate. (Sexual orientation was not, for example, included in the 1969 hate crimes legislation.)
Where you’ve simply been logically inconsistent I’ve pointed that out to you. (A slippery slope that hasn’t yielded any examples you can reference in 40 years? Really? How slippery would you really say that slope is, Jaim?)
All you’ve done from the beginning is simply repeat the same things over and over and over like a child who isn’t getting his way.
And then there’s Amused:
Amused, I can only assume that you actually meant that it’s double jeopardy for a person to receive multiple convictions for the same act. It’s a sentencing question, in other words. A little research suggests that the governing Supreme Court case here, it seems to me, is Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) in which the unanimous court decision established the following test for double jeopardy in this context:
Proving a hate crime clearly requires proving an additional and separate set of elements that are not included in the charge that the hate crime is attached to, which is the bias motivation at the heart of the definition of a hate crime.
As for the federal vs state jurisdiction double jeopardy argument, again, Amused, you’re just flat out wrong.
Allow me to direct you to this post which pretty much explains, again, why: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/does-hate-crime-bill-create-double-j
Now, Amused or Jaim, if either one of you want to refute the validity of anything I’ve written, argued or linked to, go for it.
But when do it, if you don’t also provide links, citations, references etc. to support your claims, what fucking good are you?
“(Sexual orientation was not, for example, included in the 1969 hate crimes legislation.)”
I was happy to acknowledge that.
You’ve linked to lots of opinion and to wikipedia. And David Neiwart twice. All well and good. It doesn’t change the fact that reasonable people can have issues with HCL in both theory and practice.
What you haven’t shown is that HCL has any demonstrable preventative power, which is the primary reason for such legislation. You have agreed that the death penalty probably is as much of a deterrent to murder as HCL is to racist or identity-based crimes. Which is to say, not a deterrent at all.
“All you’ve done from the beginning is simply repeat the same things over and over and over like a child who isn’t getting his way.”
LOL. This is the only thing you’ve done yourself! “See, I can find an article by David Neiwart! Twice even!”
This legislation disgusts me… first what exactly did this have to do with the defense bill? The bill itself had little support on its own.. at least not enough to have been passed had it been voted for by itself. so they attach it to the defense bill, saying, sign this, agree to it, or your sons and daughters fighting over seas will not get the support they need.
The bill itself is unequal- how is a crime based off hate worse than a crime that is not? and how exactly do you determine if it was a hate crime?
an example, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom… kidnapped, taken to a house where Channon was forced to watch while her boyfriend was raped and then shot, then she was raped, beaten, and had bleach poured down her throat and body, all while she was still alive, then wrapped in a garbage bag and suffocated to death. two young straight, white people, attacked by four black men and one black woman. this was deemed not to be a hate crime, and instead a crime of opportunity…
so you tell me… had the rolls been reversed would it have been a hate crime? what makes this not a hate crime? was it because they were white or straight? does this mean that those that fit this category are not protected by that same legislation? how do you prove what someone was thinking if they deny the reasoning behind it was hate???
If there has been a lack of justice for the victims the sentence should not be added on as a bonus for the victim because they are a specific gender, race or choose to have a same sex relationship. There should be however a replacement of those in power who fail to uphold the law already established that is supposed to protect EVERYONE.
how is it justice if my son, heaven forbid, is murdered and the son of a gun gets a specific sentence… while in another situation with the same type of murder, the person who committed the act gets a harsher sentence soley based off of what the victim looked like? where is the justice in that?
“Proving a hate crime clearly requires proving an additional and separate set of elements that are not included in the charge that the hate crime is attached to, which is the bias motivation at the heart of the definition of a hate crime.”
So what exactly are you saying fafaroo? that we should look into the criminals past? to see what life the man led prior to the incident? Correct me, as I’m sure you will but this would mean that you are then putting the mans life on trial and not the actual act. in other words those that believe a certain way, as in a free country we should have the right to believe in whatever we want, are no longer allowed to or suffer the consequences. Putting a persons past, or previous crimes into the court would make the actual trial biased. thus not giving the dirt bag the “fair” trial he deserves. and if you are able to bring up his past, what about the victims? like rape victims, what about looking into their sexual past and bringing that up? I mean, if you can bring up the dirt bags past why not hers? it would go to show the character of the person wouldnt it? In my honest opinion the only thing that matters about what the perosn was thinking should be whether or not this was premeditation or johnny on the spot killing
We have laws against auto theft, but still have auto theft. We have more severe penalties against carjacking, but still have carjackings. Should we repeal or lessen the penalties involved in anti-carjacking laws because of their ineffectiveness? The “HCL is ineffective” argument is as bogus as arguing that ANY law that doesn’t prevent 100% of a given crime is bogus.
“Preventative power” is often NOT the primary purpose of any given law.
Again, what is so hard about saying, or even thinking, “Wow, I wasn’t aware of all those facts and case law this guy is citing. I guess he is right and I am wrong.”?
Mambochicken has been persuaded on this topic, as have I. Of course, to be fair, neither one of us was called a “fucking moron” at the outset of the discussion. That tends to irritate.
fafaroo,
Your eloquence on the law is simply astounding. This conversation brings to mind our previous discussions about Ricci. Same tenacious qualities with the same results. You literally cannot see the forest for the trees. It is people like you who are the greatest danger to our republic, you are the rot within, who left to your own devices would reduce us to latter day serfs eaking out a meager existance at the whims of a powerful central government that decided the fate of every citizen in every event based on the convenience of the moment.
Sorry AO, but people like you are the greatest danger to our republic-In your dream world, anyone who was not white, christian, heterosexual, and conservative would be herded into camps for the final solution.
This conversation brings to mind our previous discussions about Ricci. Same tenacious qualities with the same results.
Yeah. I remember that. We explained the law to you, we explained the case to you, we explained the appeals court decision and then the supreme court decision to you. And you responded every time by telling us how black people were naturally stupid.
It was a great discussion.
So what exactly are you saying fafaroo?
Ron, why don’t you go back through this thread and then find the other thread on this legislation and read. Or else you could just do what I did and actually research the laws, the court decisions, the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion on your own.
You clearly haven’t done even the most basic research on the subject. Like Amused and Jaim, you have no idea how hate crimes laws work, what they do and how they’re enforced.
So why don’t you go education yourself and then come back here. If you do the actual research and you come to the same conclusion, come back here and make your case like an adult and not, sorry Bruce but it’s true, a complete fucking moron.
a complete fucking moron? honestly wow, you amuse me. The fact that this bill was passed along side a bill it had absolutely nothing to do with due to the lack of support it had would say that the bill itself is crap.
America is now following hate law countries such as Canada, England, and Australia in erecting a bias-oriented justice system existing parallel to traditional law. The government will now become especially attuned to the question of whether bias has motivated a crime on the state level. If they decide it has, the federal government will have complete jurisdiction to enter the case, forcing states to obtain the verdict the government wants. If the state fails to do so, the government can force it to re-try the case until federal prosecutors are satisfied. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution, reserving generous rights and protections to states, especially in law enforcement, will become irretrievably shattered.
The Constitution does not grant federal government the police state privilege of intervention in local law enforcement. Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution’s message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: “Butt out of local law enforcement!”
But HCL gives the government the right to do what the Constitution forbids.
HCL seeks to establish a different “bias motivation” justice system, which will be defined in courts by judges, as has happened in Canada over the past 36 years. Closely advised and pressured by ADL, these federal and local (and mostly liberal) judges will establish legal precedents-precedents that protect groups such as homosexuals not only from physical bias-motivated violence but also from “verbal violence.” This will include the “hate speech” of Bible-believing evangelical Christians. This is exactly what has occurred in Canada and the many European nations who accepted hate laws.
HCL thus does more than violate states’ rights in law enforcement. It also leads inexorably to an end of free speech!
I am a consitutionalist not a bigot, nor am I a “moron” simply because I see the stupidity behind a bill that had little to no support and was only passed because of underhanded and devious means. If this bill had stood alone and America agreed by the majority that this was needed, I would agree to it.
The fact that this bill gives so much power to the federal government over local or state issues means that each state is no longer sovereign.
I don’t really care what you specifically had to say prior Fafaroo, as you are obviously ignorant to the long term damage this can cause to our rights, please pretend the constitution isnt just a piece of paper and realize this goes against everything America stands for.
get rid of the federal power taken by their own accord, allow states to decide if they want this, and if local government fails to uphold the already established law, get rid of them. please let me know how this makes me a moron. I await with open arms.
I’m still kind of ambivalent about this. But I heard an interesting thought experiment yesterday. Suppose a teenager spray paints his girlfriend’s name on the overpass. Another spray paints a swastika on a synagouge. Technically, they’re the same physical act, defacing property with paint. But are they equal crimes?
I was happy to acknowledge that.
Really? I seem to have missed where you did that. Could you point that out to me?
What you haven’t shown is that HCL has any demonstrable preventative power, which is the primary reason for such legislation.
See, Jaim, I’ve already told you several times that I don’t think it matters one way or the other. And yet, here you are, trying to push this point as if it’s the key to the whole issue. It isn’t. It would be great if they did deter hate crimes, but if they don’t it doesn’t matter.
LOL. This is the only thing you’ve done yourself! “See, I can find an article by David Neiwart! Twice even!”
Yeah but you seem, Jaim, Neiwart actually provides facts and links to experts. That’s why I linked to Crooks and Liars in this thread. Neiwart spoke with an actual constitutional lawyer and cited his answers in the post. They were, of course, answers I’d already given to Amused but he seemed to require a second helping.
Again, I keep answering your questions and you keep coming back with the same shit as if I haven’t said anything at all.
Even when you have linked to someone, like Andrew Sullivan, Sullivan didn’t provide any expert or authoritative facts. He was just repeating the same opinion you have without any evidence to back it up. You linked to it thinking him just being Andrew Sullivan was enough to make everything he said true even though he has no special expertise on the subject. That’s an appeal to authority fallacy, Jaim.
When I link to some other source, you’ll see that the information presented there is actually sourced and cited to an actual authoritative text or actual expert in the field.
I didn’t just link to David Newiart saying a bunch of shit. I linked to David Neiwart talking to an actual fucking lawyer about the law.
You linked to Sullivan talking to himself.
You see the difference, Jaim?
fafaroo,
Not surprisingly you mischaractorize our discussions regarding Ricci. You backed the idea of affirmative action trumping the Constitution then with all the force and twisted logic you bring to bear on this subject.
“We explained the law to you, we explained the case to you, we explained the appeals court decision and then the supreme court decision to you. And you responded every time by telling us how black people were naturally stupid”
You were wrong on Ricci if you remember. And you are wrong to charactorize my position as black people were naturally stupid. The blacks in the Ricci case were obviously not up to speed compared to the successful litigents in the Ricci case. Your point at the time being any test blacks don’t pass is proof of racism. Ricci is a good example not of the lack of black intellectual achievement, a continual sore spot amongst liberals, but of your intellectual definciencies as you clearly backed the wrong horse on Ricci with the your usual enthusiasim for convoluted logic and disregard for our Constitution.
Hey CdWard,
You certainly have a talent for hyperbole or to put it in more direct terms, bullshit.
You backed the idea of affirmative action trumping the Constitution then with all the force and twisted logic you bring to bear on this subject.
Oh boy! He we go again. AO thinks he knows more about Constitutional Law than the entire Supreme Court. AA has been upheld as Constitutional how many times now, AO?
You backed the idea of affirmative action trumping the Constitution then with all the force and twisted logic you bring to bear on this subject.
Oh yes. I’d say this was an accurate characterization of my position.
Ricci is a good example not of the lack of black intellectual achievement, a continual sore spot amongst liberals, but of your intellectual definciencies as you clearly backed the wrong horse on Ricci
…
You’re awesome, Amused. You never fail to out yourself.
[i]I am a consitutionalist not a bigot, nor am I a “moron” simply because I see the stupidity behind a bill that had little to no support and was only passed because of underhanded and devious means. If this bill had stood alone and America agreed by the majority that this was needed, I would agree to it.[/i]
Ron, you’re a moron because you didn’t read the bill, nor I would gather, any hate crimes legislation. You haven’t read any of the case law and you haven’t read any of articles, legal opinions and cases I’ve cited here.
Your obvious ignorance was clear in your first post and it’s now clear, that rather than read up and educate yourself, you’ve decided to double down on the dumb with a heavy helping of conservative paranoia and Eu’rup is evil bullshit.
Same old same old.
[i]HCL seeks to establish a different “bias motivation” justice system, which will be defined in courts by judges, as has happened in Canada over the past 36 years.[/i]
[i]Will[/i] be defined? [i]Will[/i]?
Here’s a couple questions for you, Ron.
How long has there been a federal law against hate crimes in the united states and can you tell me when these judges [i]finally[/i] going to get around to dragging Christians from their pulpits and throwing them in jail?
hmmm… I didn’t read the bill? sadly you are mistaken and citing case laws doesn’t change what this bill not only does but has the potential to do. You see one side and call anyone whom doesnt agree with you a moron which only leads me to believe your intelligence is powered by the almighty google. Never did I say I didn’t read the bill, I don’t base my ideas from propaganda or other peoples fears. Perhaps instead of citing laws you can read the constitution and see where this is clearly a violation of the previous amendments stated.
the Federal Hate Crimes Law was established in 1969 one year after the civil rights bill passed, this was a means to protect minorities who were attempting to if im not mistaken, engage in federally protected activities, like going to school and such. or voting, which i repeat as before The Constitution does not grant federal government the police state privilege of intervention in local law enforcement. Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce.
the matthew shepard act removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue.
The previous cases in which two people argue in court over what is right and what is wrong is irrelevant. The fact remains, this current act gives the federal government more power where the constitution states it should not. I believe in the idea of the hate crime bill in theory. I believe that any crime based off hate or without is without question disgusting and should be punished, what i dont believe in is violations of the consitution.
and to answer when judges will start charging preachers for hate speech? sorry not a psychic, all i can do is say the potential is there since the power to do it will be. I can however also state that canada is having these very issues as we speak. where does it end? they go as far as searching web sites where they then determine whom they are and either shut them down or prosecute.
Think not of what we desire but the effects of what we are asking for are given. Look to other countries whom some how we have fallen so proudly into their foot steps.
if you feel this is not a violation of our consitution then please advise me how it is not, since i have taken the time to show you how it is. State laws or cases where somehow the federal government is allowed to give itself power where the constitution says it should not and should belong to the states, please tell me just one case that specifically mentions how I am wrong.
now to help in this situation i do recognize that This bill also includes some feel good language, saying that it shall not be construed to penalize any constitutionally protected speech or religious belief. Well, no kidding. It goes without saying that no federal statute can override the Constitution, that any attempt to do so is automatically null and void and completely unenforceable in court.
I also recognize that The Constitution doesn’t forbid bad ideas or bad laws; it only forbids unconstitutional laws.
A person’s intentions regularly make a difference in a crime. Whether killing someone was done with premeditation and reflection is the difference between first and second-degree murder. Whether a killing was done is with malice aforethought is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Whether a person’s lethal act was intentional is the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Whether one person intended to hit another is the difference between battery and negligence. And so on.
so a case to shoot out here…
1993 case Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The Court reasoned that since the targeting of a specific individual in not speaking, it is not protected by the First Amendment.
so I realize legally the bill is not unconsitutional for the 1st amendment in this situation, and I must add in… yet.
But although this federal law may not violate the First Amendment, it may be unconstitutional anyway. In Mitchell, the Court was upholding a state law. That’s important because states wield the police power: the authority to make general laws for the public health, safety and morality of the population.
The federal government has no police power, except in Washington, D.C., federal territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico, or federal holdings such as military bases. The federal government cannot assert any police power in the fifty states.
So the federal government—as a government of limited jurisdiction—must have a specific provision of the Constitution that authorizes this hate-crimes provision. If it has none, then the law is unconstitutional. if the states don’t want it they don’t have to have it, so says the consitution.
the authors of this legislation actually attempt to say its consitutional since these crimes indirectly effect commerce… i mean… come on… really?
and please, name calling? if you want a civil and an intelligent debate lets not lower ourselves to name calling shall we?
wow i am really annoyed at how many times i mispelled constitution… i really need to slow down
…the Federal Hate Crimes Law was established in 1969 one year after the civil rights bill passed, this was a means to protect minorities who were attempting to if im not mistaken, engage in federally protected activities, like going to school and such. or voting,…
You’re mistaken. Federally protected activities also include:
Note the parts that are bold, Ron. Essentially, it offers federal protection to anyone doing just about anything in public. Considerably broader than voting, attending school or sitting on a jury.
Matthew Shepard was murdered by two men he met in a bar. They lured him from the bar to the place they killed him. They did this because he was gay. The only reason Shepard’s killers couldn’t be prosecuted under federal hate crimes laws is because at the time, sexual orientation, wasn’t included in the statute. Otherwise, Shepard was engaged in a federally protected activity when his killers targeted him.
So, Ron, you’re dead wrong straight out of the gate. And yet the actual text of the 1969 hate crimes law is so easy to find using the google. Why couldn’t you just look it up to confirm what it says?
I think it’s because you don’t have any idea how to have “a civil and an intelligent debate.” A civil and intelligent debate requires some respect for the process of civil and intelligent debate.
Not having your basic facts straight at the outset shows considerable disrespect for the process. Especially when checking the basic facts is so easy these days. This is why you’re a fucking moron, Ron, and why I’m unmoved entirely buy your whining about civil and intelligent debate.
You don’t know what the phrase means. It doesn’t mean writing sentences like this:
and leaving it at that as if just adding the phrase “the fact remains” makes something true. It doesn’t. You actually have to support your claim with some evidence. But you haven’t.
You haven’t even cited or even named the section of the Constitution that this bill is supposed to have violated.
Here’s another example:
Really? It does? Can you cite the specific language that does this? Because all I see in the text is that it adds a new section on sentencing below the section that outlines federally protected activities adding this language:
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
….
(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–
(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–
(I) across a State line or national border; or
(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–
(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
Is that language you’re talking about? Because that doesn’t change anything in the federally protected activities described in the original law while placing the law within Congress’ Constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce.
Now I know how much you disdain “previous cases in which two people argue in court over what is right and what is wrong” as “irrelevant” but when those cases are Supreme Court cases those cases anything but fucking irrelevant when you’re talking about the Constitutionality of a law. And the Supreme Court has granted Congress broad powers under the commerce clause to enact certain laws, including this one.
So in other words, when you write this:
All I can say is take it up with the Supreme fucking Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Civil_rights
And this is my favorite part of your response:
Followed soon thereafter by this:
It’s so awesome that you only decided to read the bill after your first rant and doubly awesome that you felt it was enough to dismiss what you found as “feel good language.” Please, dude.
Your paranoid fantasy of priests being arrested for preaching against homosexuality is just that: A paranoid fantasy. Thank you so much for introducing it into our “civil and intelligent debate.”
Moron.
ok obviously you cant help yourself as proven in each of your posts.
in reference to: “Really? It does? Can you cite the specific language that does this? Because all I see in the text is that it adds a new section on sentencing below the section that outlines federally protected activities adding this language:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act since you like linking i figured this should help.
also http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/245.html this actually doesn’t say that they are protected while doing “basically anything.” and the wording/meaning behind this bill and to whether or not its constitutional has led to more debates than I can possibly cite as you would so desperately like me to do. All of which had actual grown ups talking where name calling wasnt used to get his point across, kind of disappointing really… I thought you at least had some maturity but its apparant you dont.
tenth amendment states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. so I ask you where in the Consitution does it state the federal government has the ability to pass this bill as it stands or as it is written?
I state again… states wield the police power: the authority to make general laws for the public health, safety and morality of the population.
The federal government has no police power, except in Washington, D.C., federal territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico, or federal holdings such as military bases. The federal government cannot assert any police power in the fifty states.
I am saying as of right NOW it doesn’t violate the 1st amendment but is on its way of doing so, such as canada. Just as I submit that it does not violate the 5th amendment, double jeopardy does not apply here since The Fifth Amendment does not protect a person from being tried by two or more separate governments. Thus, both the federal government and the state government are able to charge and prosecute one person for the same criminal act, which is often the case for drug related crimes. As well, two or more states can prosecute and try a person for the same criminal act.
However I would like to point out that your ability to google amazes me, congrats, you list every part of the bill. two thumbs up!!! I will try not to summarize by what I remember and will copy and paste word for word like you do and pretend its my own knowledge.
From previous posts others have depicted you as saying that certain bills override the Constituion… I truly hope this isn’t your stand.
oh and to your funny comment of “Your paranoid fantasy of priests being arrested for preaching against homosexuality is just that: A paranoid fantasy. Thank you so much for introducing it into our “civil and intelligent debate.”
tell that to Canada where it actually is happening. and once again it isn’t happening now but the power to be able to do so will be IF we continue down the same steps as other countries as we have been. you try so hard to sound smart but you only make yourself look stupid.
and to “All I can say is take it up with the Supreme fucking Court.”
ummm… what do you think we are doing?
I fought and bled for my country, I believe in the constitution over anything else, over anyones opinion or any courts decision. Anything that even hints as a violation to our constitution I will fight as I always have. and our intelligent debate ceased to be an intelligent debate the moment you hit your enter key. have a great day though!
oh one last thing…
“Matthew Shepard was murdered by two men he met in a bar. They lured him from the bar to the place they killed him. They did this because he was gay. The only reason Shepard’s killers couldn’t be prosecuted under federal hate crimes laws is because at the time, sexual orientation, wasn’t included in the statute. Otherwise, Shepard was engaged in a federally protected activity when his killers targeted him.”:
your failing to see what I have been typing about… I don’t mind that sexual orientation was added in a bill that was already pointless, seeing as the attackers recieved life sentences for the actual crime and not the reasoning behind it. Uphold the already established and if the courts refuse to, get rid of them. simple. What your calling ignorance is actually difference of opinion, you see things one way as others see a different way.
a tid bit of info according to the FBI, that of the nearly 1.5 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, only 1,460 were reportedly based on sexual orientation… should all prejudices (ageism, anti-gay bias, bias against the physically and mentally disabled, etc.) be included in hate crime laws or only a select few (racism, ethnic bias, and religious bias)? Inevitably, if some groups are left out, they will resent the selective depreciation of their victimization.” For instance, the Hate Crimes Act singles gay people out for expanded protection from hate crimes, yet fails to address the thousands of crimes that occur each year against people who, while not gay, just don’t “fit in.” As one journalist asked, “Why not accord the same enhanced protection to kids who stutter, teenagers with bad acne, or adults who are overweight, homeless, or have unusually large ears?”
I suppose this is yet another difference between republicans and democrats.
…this actually doesn’t say that they are protected while doing “basically anything.”
And where did I say otherwise? Usually when you put something in quotes, it’s because you’re quoting it from where. Where did I say that federally protected acts cover “basically anything”?
Please don’t lecture me about “maturity” if you’re going to get your facts wrong in the first place and then distort what I write while correcting you.
Moron.
so I ask you where in the Consitution does it state the federal government has the ability to pass this bill as it stands or as it is written?
I already answered that. Commerce clause.
I am saying as of right NOW it doesn’t violate the 1st amendment but is on its way of doing so, such as canada.
This may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen written in this long lentghy thread. The law does not violent the first amendment NOW but it will. soon. sometime. Because evil judges want it to.
Again, you’re a moron.
I will try not to summarize by what I remember and will copy and paste word for word like you do and pretend its my own knowledge.
Okay. You’re just fucking stupid. Citing something to back up a factual assertion is how mature. intelligent people debate issues. Citing a source is not pretending “its my own knowledge.” It’s backing up a claim with the facts.
You really are just plain stupid.
…tell that to Canada where it actually is happening.
Because Canada has the exact same constitution we have. Right.
Moron.
I fought and bled for my countr …
And how exactly is this relevant to any part of this discussion? It isn’t relevant at all. It’s the last refuge of a moron who has no idea what he’s talking about. What a disgrace.
look up to the top of your previous post
“Essentially, it offers federal protection to anyone doing just about anything”
and to “I already answered that. Commerce clause.”
a pathetic attempt to give more power to the federal governement and is being disputed.
and to “This may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen written in this long lentghy thread. The law does not violent the first amendment NOW but it will. soon. sometime. Because evil judges want it to.
Again, you’re a moron.”
you ignore plain facts so you in fact are the moron as you ignore the rest of my quote, something again you stated I did which made me the moron right? so in turn this makes you the same.
and to your comment about me serving my country saying
And how exactly is this relevant to any part of this discussion? It isn’t relevant at all. It’s the last refuge of a moron who has no idea what he’s talking about. What a disgrace.
stating why I believe in what I believe makes me a disgrace? exactly how? your a pathetic whiny little shit who believes he’s right, when he’s not. if you were right this wouldn’t still be an issue nor would they review the wording of the bill. do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Two things, Ron:
“I fought and bled for my country.” This is fine and to be lauded, but it doesn’t give your arguments about HCL any more validity than if you were a dirty fucking hippie like me.
“The federal government cannot assert any police power in the 50 states.” Really? So the FBI, DEA, or ATF can’t arrest me if I break the law? Good to know.
Dude, give it up! Just repeating things about HCL you heard on talk radio won’t win your argument with fafaroo. And he’ll hurt your feelings some more, too.