Posted on 05/17/2009 3:16:34 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
LEGISLATION pending before Congress would dramatically expand the federal hate-crimes law, and a number of critics are concerned that the bill goes too far. Perhaps the real problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
Under current law, crimes motivated by bias against a victim's race, color, religion, or national origin can be prosecuted by the federal government, so long as the victim had been engaged in a "federally-protected activity" - attending a public school, for example, or being in a place of public accommodation or entertainment. The proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which passed the House last month and is pending in the Senate, would significantly broaden the federal government's reach.
The bill, named for a gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998, would add four new categories of hate crimes to the federal code: those committed because of someone's sex, sexual orientation, gender (or transgender) identity, and disability. It would eliminate the prerequisite of a "federally-protected activity" and require instead only the loosest connection to interstate commerce. And the proposed legislation would make it far easier for defendants acquitted in state court to be retried at the federal level - a circumvention of the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy that has prompted four members of the US Civil Rights Commission to publicly oppose the bill.
If enacted, the law will almost certainly be challenged in court. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any general police power - prosecuting crime is primarily a state and local responsibility - and it is far from clear that the Supreme Court would go along with a congressional attempt to federalize such a broad swath of criminal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
....it will be interesting to see how this would be enforced with non violent crime....say a straight lawyer embezzles from a queer’s trust fund....or a car thief steals a queer’s vehicle....or a neighbor complains about a loud party at a queer’s home....are these hate crimes?
If this passes, I recommend Barack and Michelle be the first two prosecuted under the law. Their words and actions show indisputable “hate” for America and the things that make her great....
hh
I harrassed Jerry Rubin by wearing a ROTC uniform and standing ten feet in front of him in college. Jerry Rubin glanced at me nervously several times during his talk.
I heard that Jerry Rubin referred to himself as “gay” in his later years. While I was at a demonstration against Bill Ayers speaking in Baltimore I saw what was obviously an old hippe. So I referred loudly to someone about the incident and said Rubin was shook up. Well, this old hippie took the bait and said he doubted that I could shake up Jerry Rubin. Bingo!
I then said that of course Rubin was shook up, he was just a queerbait. This got the guy furious and he started shouting that I was a homophobe. At that point he also went to the police. I was then shouting to match him that he was a heterophobe.
Under the new hate crimes law I would probably either be in jail for a hate crime.
When do you think the Irish revolution will begin?
Hate crime laws are the tools of hatred by hateful hate-mongers.
> Do you know what I am thinking right now?
Beyond what you have written, no.
> Could you prove what I am thinking right now in any conceivable manner in a court of law?
No, but that is not the intention of “hate crime” law. They seek to establish a) “why” you are thinking what you are thinking, and “which” of your beliefs are driving your actions. In this case, that’s rather easy: you are seeking a) to “win” a debate b) based upon your belief that you are right and I am wrong.
Same deal with hate crime, with more emphasis on b) than on a).
My take is pretty much like Harvey Keitel’s in the US version of “Life on Mars”:
“A hate crime? As opposed to a ‘I really, really like you’ crime?”
Nope.
==========================
IMHO they are worse -- much worse.
For with a "hate crime":
A crime is a crime. Bad intentions are equally as bad as good intentions.
I see what you are saying.
Court proceeding notes...
Your internet browsing history shows that you post on FR. This is a well known site known to harbor homophobes, therefor the jury finds you guilty as charged on all counts.
OJ would have been spending the rest of his life in jail for murder if he had been white and the victims "special".
There seems to be a great deal of confusion among the voting public, as to how to govern our country.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is because most of those who aren’t at least very close to social security time have never been taught history, civics etc. If they were taught any a lot of what they were taught was wrong. Find someone under fifty who has ever heard of the Magna Charta or the Battle of Hastings and can tell you something about them.
Ah, I believe we are looking at the question differently. My answer was based on my belief that crimes are crimes and should not be prosecuted with the added ‘hate crime’ charges thrown in. I agree with your “For with a “hate crime”:” definition. That is exactly right.
Of course they’re worse than any other crime!
Mathew Sheppard is deader than he would have been if those anti-homosexual, racists who murdered him while screaming “I HATE FAGS!!!!” than he would have been if he had just been murdered by another homosexual, or in a drug deal gone bad...
Huh? It was a drug deal gone bad? Oh, never mind.
Mark
:-)
Odd that they’d name it for the victim of a drug deal gone bad.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1
> I see what you are saying.
See also #11 for context
> Your internet browsing history shows that you post on FR. This is a well known site known to harbor homophobes, therefor the jury finds you guilty as charged on all counts.
Yup, and absent an effective defense (eg, posting history demonstrating that I am not homophobic) that is probably how it would go.
Hate crime is bad law IMO. At best, “hate” might be an aggravating factor useful for sentencing. It should not be a crime in and of itself.
For example, I hate Nazis. So I should: many good men fought and died 65 years ago hating Nazis too, and they were right to do so. Should that version of “hate” be a crime, too? Why not?
It should not be a crime to dislike or hate anybody, even if that dislike or hate is pig-ignorant, ill-informed, irrational, illogical, bigoted and wrong-headed. It should be and always has been and is a crime to act on that to the determent of someone else.
That is as it should be.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
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.