Posted on 09/29/2005 11:54:59 PM PDT by Anthem
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive. (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance. (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. (5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.I agree with all five points - but how the heck a Republican congress then concludes that the proper solution is to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution by protecting some citizens more than others is beyond my understanding. All violent crime effects more than just person attacked because the people around the crime area are scared - we need to acknowledge the causes and work on them but not violate he constitution to do it.
Religion and sexual orientation are belief systems. Why is political belief not also so protected? Answer, so the left wing bigots can continue to torment Republicans without being "haters".
"Religion and sexual orientation are belief systems. Why is political belief not also so protected? Answer, so the left wing bigots can continue to torment Republicans without being "haters"."
That's another excellent point -there are many other causes of hate and bigotry that are not covered by this law- yet another example of why this law violates equal protection.
The Federal government would be a rational size (cost) had Ike's administration not explored how actions affect interstate commerce.
If a person of the same race creed religion or he/she/it sexual orientation is murdered, is it a lesser crime? What crime against persons isn't hateful?
"If a person of the same race creed religion or he/she/it sexual orientation is murdered, is it a lesser crime? What crime against persons isn't hateful?"
Exactly - the argument for hate crime legislation hinges on the idea that a crime against a member of a protected class effects the whole class and thus is a bigger crime.
But you know what, if somebody in my neighborhood got mugged it would effect the whole neighborhood. Maybe my neighborhood should be a protected class too?
Follow the link above and read the article by Dr. Crichton. It's a speech for the ages.
An excellent point. I'm putting that one in the ammo box.
Do you think we can raise some support here to go after the Senate to clean up this bill. All the Feds are needed for is to facilitate interstate manhunts and perhaps require extradition and cooperation between the States.
So now thought is a crime and we are all subject to the laws of Indian tribes?
It's worse than that. Let's say that someone was breaking into your home and you had to shoot him. Let's say that he's of a different race than you. You are put on trial and your conservatism will be evidence for the prosecution "has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant". Sec. 249 (b)(1)
" So now thought is a crime and we are all subject to the laws of Indian tribes?"
I'm gonna be an optimist here - that probably doesn't extend the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes but allows DA to assist them in law enforcement.
And for a legitimate case -like a serial killer, help is totally appropriate.
But what if the Indian Tribe law is unfair - it sounds like the DA may still hve to help.
"We need to fight this. Raise hell as loudly as possible that the Republican leadership is delivering us into the despotism of arbitrary law. We have been arguing against hate crime legislation for years, and yet it's a full Republican majority and dominance of both legislative and executive branches of the Federal government that is passing this abomination."
But who would we get for allies? No Democrat is gonna vote against this. I think the best hope are the courts.
Flagging you for activism. There are a lot of unintended consequences that will result if this thing isn't changed in the Senate. Good people will find themselves prosecuted for resisting evil if this passes as is.
There is a new movement in the Libertarian party to take an incrementalist, rather than all-or-nothing approach. It is political pragmatism, and if the Constitutionalists party could also find leadership that was willing to form a coalition, that would scare the liberalism out of the Republican leadership. It can start right here.
Are you Daft? Serial killers don't do it out of Hate, and there is no problem prosecuting them, just catching them.
"...is motivated by prejudice...."
You caught that too?
There is a big difference between prejudice and racism. Big difference between a "hateful" act that causes physical harm, and one's prejudicial viewpoint.
Very bad idea!
We used to catch the bad guys pretty well. Some of the most famous bad guys of the depression era actually had short careers. (With the exception of the bootleggers who corrupted most local governments because the people did not want prohibition and so tolerated the crime).
Title X isn't about catching interstate criminals. It's and amendment slipped into a bill about catching interstate child predators, but itself won't catch any criminals. It will cause misery to good people who find themselves afraid to confront any bad guys of the protected class. A thought crime has no real proof, it's arbitrary, and so will only help those who don't have facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.