OT: Impeachment Isn't Enough

[Viki]

It's unfortunate to see so much intolerance, judgmentalism and well, hatred coming from people who like to think of themselves as being above it.

Oh, come on, post under your "real" name or don't post at all. On this board, we don't bite, we regularly engage in civilized conversation, and about the only thing we won't tolerate (except being lewd or spamming) is cowardice. So, please post often, but do it under a name with some gravitas. This is your one caution

 

[Saxton]

Murder is murder, whether the victim is Asian, Caucasian, African American, old, young, gay or straight. The suffering of family and friends is the same. The hate crimes bill does not attempt to raise one crime above another, it does not give one victim greater status than another. In it's simplest form the hate crime bill (H.R. 1592) gives federal law enforcement the authority to assist state, local and tribal law enforcement with the investigation of the crime (“(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.”). Why is this important? Because local authorities may not be experienced with these types of investigations, people may be unwilling to speak ,and sadly, local authorities may not be willing to move forward due to bias.


If you are walking down a city street and are murdered because someone wants to steal your wallet that is terrible and your family and friends would be devastated. If I am murdered walking down a city street simply because I'm a lesbian then it not only affects my friends and family but it also affects gay and lesbian people that I've never met, it fills them with fear. That is mentioned in the bill “(5) A 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.”

The hate crimes bill does not raise any group to a higher level.

 

[BikeFan]

Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.

THAT is the difference between crime and a hate crime.

One targets the door of a synagogue, the other targets an entire community.

That's a really good example, but I'd also argue that "Die Jew" is worse because it's an implied threat, which is a crime above and beyond merely spraying "Smile" or a tagger's (graffiti artist's) sign, which is a very common sight for those of us in urban areas. What if I moved to small town and found "Die Outsider" on my door? Should I be less afraid than if I found "Die Jew"? Yet one is a hate crime and one is not.

 

[BikeFan]

If you are walking down a city street and are murdered because someone wants to steal your wallet that is terrible and your family and friends would be devastated. If I am murdered walking down a city street simply because I'm a lesbian then it not only affects my friends and family but it also affects gay and lesbian people that I've never met, it fills them with fear. That is mentioned in the bill “(5) A 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.”

Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

 

[sdbirdsong]

. . . the hate crime bill (H.R. 1592) gives federal law enforcement the authority to assist state, local and tribal law enforcement with the investigation of the crime . . .
The hate crimes bill does not raise any group to a higher level.

Hate crime legislation provides for stiffer sentences (saw one piece that tacked on an extra ten years) for hate crimes than for non hate crimes. This seems like special consideration to me.

And before I get any more flames, I'm against violence. I think all violent crimes against whomever should be prosecuted but equally and across the board no matter what group either side belongs to.

Further if the legislation does pass, I want rape declared a hate crime. Maybe then it won't one of the most underreported, under-prosectued, under-convicted crime on the books.

 

[Saxton]

Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

No, it is not the same. How often do you watch the 6:00 news and see reports of violent crime - someone is mugged or there is a home invasion. But people usually think "it only happens to someone else, it will never happen to me". With hate crimes, that isn't the case. Every time I hear about a homosexual being attack just for who they are I think "that could be me". You may not understand it but that frear is inside us every day.

 

[markp1]

Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.
QUOTE]
That's not clear to me at all. In fact, I find that people resort to words like "clearly" only when they realize it's far from clear, and they have no other way of forcing their point on you. Either way, the Jews have a door they need to repair.

 

[markp1]

See, here's where I get confused. A rich person is much more likely to be robbed (which could result in murder) than a homosexual, because that's where the money is. So don't rich people need to be more protected than homosexuals? If so, shouldn't hate crime bills focus more on rich people?

 

[calgarygary]

I wish to apologize. For the past 6 & 1/2 years, I have been thinking that well you voted for him, you deserve all the damage he causes. Now, Jr. is going even further than I can stomache, impeachment is too slow a process. Hopefully in the future, you will develop a national recall formula to deal with other electoral mistakes. You deserve better than Jr. it's too bad that you have to suffer through the next year and a half.

I am a concerned Canadian.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by BikeFan View Post
Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was?

Well some will never be proven. Much like any other statute. There is always the burden of proof that the government must meet. I don't think we should alter that. So I'm sure some hate crimes will indeed go unpunished as such. But in other cases, we certainly will have enough evidence. Example. A group beats up someone completely unprovoked and witnesses have them shouting certain slurs before, during, and after. I'd say that was enough evidence.

On to the subject. If Gays were going around beating heterosexuals merely because they are heterosexuals in large numbers, I have no doubt this thing would pass. And by the way, if that happens they could be charged with a hate crime. I don't see where it's granting any special status here.

Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

That simply isn't true. Merely committing a crime against a class of victim won't get you charged with a hate crime. If a black kills his white wife for the insurance money, there will be no hate crime charged. However, if he goes and kills a white woman and paints things like All whites must die all over the place, well he will be. It had nothing to do with the class of victim.

 

[sotoalf]

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.

Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

 

[sotoalf]

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.

Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

For the record prosecuting "hate crimes" (the very term sounds Orwellian, no?) has always made me uneasy. Andrew Sullivan has been most eloquent in explaining his own ambivalences:

There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.

But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays. Gays are among the most common victims of hate crimes, and straight people are also targeted for being gay even when they're not. If you're going to buy the whole concept of hate crimes, it makes no sense to exclude gays - none. Notice we need no discussion of the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. All that is being punished is the perception of someone else's identity. A straight, evangelical married man could have recourse if he was bashed because someone merely perceived him to be gay. A celibate gay man in reparative therapy could have recourse as well. So no serious moral argument can be made to distinguish the gay victims of hate crimes from other victims.

The federalist argument equally applies. If it is the position of the feds that this should be left entirely to the states, fine. But to say that the feds have a role in matters of race and religion, but not sexual orientation again makes no logical sense, unless the federal government wants to send a strong message about the moral and human and political inferiority of gay people.

This is the crux of the matter. Federal legislation is wrong, but if you must pass it, then include crimes against homosexuals.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

I didn't say merely shooting a black merely to take his wallet or because he looked at you funny. That indeed would not be charged as a hate crime under the statute and to imply that it would is disingenuous. I said Lynching (assume it ends in death) which was done to put other blacks (as well as whites that would support their cause) in fear. Your statement is non-responsive to my argument.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech,

There is no restriction on free speech here. Merely using a racial slur isn't a crime, nor a hate crime. Nor is the KKK marching or doing anything else LEGAL. Nor does what one says in the commission of a crime necessarily evidence beyond reasonable doubt of a hate crime. That is for a Jury to decide. But saying that using speech as evidence is restricting free speech is just not true.

ts undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on.

There is not a certain type of victim or perp required for a hate crime. That is not inequality under the law.

That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect.

They protect ALL categories of individuals.

The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority.

Really? Then why have blacks been charged with hate crimes against whites?
under the statutes if they only protect minorities?

The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law.

Merely murdering someone is murder. But a hate crime is murder plus a crime of terrorism as well. You don't think killing someone and then spray painting things like Die Whites Die isn't also a crime of terror? There isn't any extra protection here. Hate Crime laws protect everyone the same. If a pick em up truck full of Gays beats up a heterosexual couple and spray paints anti-heterosexual stuff all over the place, they should be charged with a hate crime under the statutes.

But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays

There are no targeted groups. Only targeted reasons for hate crimes. But I see your point and agree with it.

 

[sotoalf]

You don't think killing someone and then spray painting things like Die Whites Die isn't also a crime of terror?

Again, not necessarily. Motivations are difficult to parse. If I attempt to bludgeon someone to death and right before my victim loses consciousness he hears me say, "F---ing f----t," he may or may not be a homophobe. At that moment it's irrelevant.

There isn't any extra protection here. Hate Crime laws protect everyone the same.

But "the same" and "equal" (as in "equal protection") are not equivalent.

Most of your points are quite valid, by the way.

 

[ConcKahuna]

Again, not necessarily. Motivations are difficult to parse. If I attempt to bludgeon someone to death and right before my victim loses consciousness he hears me say, "F---ing f----t," he may or may not be a homophobe. At that moment it's irrelevant.



But "the same" and "equal" (as in "equal protection") are not equivalent.

Most of your points are quite valid, by the way.

I agree that hate crimes should not have restrictions of ANY kinds. Currently they cover crimes that target a race/religion/nationality.

Right now, flaying a gay person's corpse, hanging them on the side of a building, and writing "All Gays Go to Hell" in 10 foot letters is considered less of a crime than doing the exact same thing to someone of a particular race. They are both obvious hate crimes, and blatant acts of terrorism. If anything, the hate crime bill should be amended to cover ANY crime of hate, no matter the target audience.

 

[OrlandoMike]

Just waking up here, but am I hearing the news correctly?

We don't have enough National Guard troops or equipment to help the Tornado victims because they are all over in Iraq?

Seems to me this would be grounds for some sort of discipline!

 

[wallyb]

Curious after reading this -
I'm thinking of perpetrating a hate crime myself.

 

[SkyMedik]

Given recent lack of response to tornado disaster (and I work in emergency management), I repeat my thread title: impeachment isn't enough.

 

[Chuck S]

And the devastated State can't respond well, as W has send most of their State National Guard oversees.