Senate voted to strike funding for F-22! (Hate Crimes law likely to be signed as result!)

[FreeState]

http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/senate-voted-to-strike-funding-for-f-22.html

By a margin of 58 - 40, the Senate just passed an amendment to strike funding for the F-22 fighter jet. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) offered the amendment to the Dept. of Defense authorization.

Obama has threatened a veto of the Defense bill if it included the F-22 funding. That bill also includes the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which passed as an amendment last week. So, this was a positive development on that front and could clear a major hurdle.

Yesterday, CQ Politics told us this would be a "showdown" vote. And, it was expected to be a very close vote. Instead, funding for the F-22 was dumped by an unexpectedly wide margin.

Thank you Senators!

[TheWraith]

1. Well, that works.

I'd rather Obama had decided to kill the F-35 instead, but on the bright side, the bill will get signed. Though really, this is another example of the stupidity of using defense bills as Christmas trees for other amendments.

[gorfle]

2. I hate the idea of "hate crimes".

Hate crime equals thought crime.

If you commit a crime, the penalties should be the same regardless of why you committed it.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Hate crimes do NOT equal thought crimes.

It is "motivation." Did you know 'motivation' can get you different charges placed against you? Did you also know motivation can also get you stiffer penalties? Yes, it is true.

"If you commit a crime, the penalties should be the same regardless of why you committed it."

Really? So, I shoot someone to death who has broken into my home and you gun down someone in the street because they looked at you the wrong way, and we should both get the same penalty? Uh-huh. Bullshit!

[gorfle]

4. That would be "thought".

It is "motivation." Did you know 'motivation' can get you different charges placed against you? Did you also know motivation can also get you stiffer penalties? Yes, it is true.

"Motivation" is the same thing as thought.

"If you commit a crime, the penalties should be the same regardless of why you committed it."

Really? So, I shoot someone to death who has broken into my home and you gun down someone in the street because they looked at you the wrong way, and we should both get the same penalty? Uh-huh. Bullshit!

Note that I said "If you commit a crime". Shooting someone to death who has broken into your home is not a crime in most places.

Your analogy fails.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Here is where you fail:

""Motivation" is the same thing as thought."

Here is a better analogy:

I shoot at a home invader and miss him and hit and kill a person on the street. You gun down someone because they looked at you funny. Both are crimes. The motivation (thought) is different, the charges will be different, and the punishments will likely be different.

There is a difference in attacking a gay man because you both get into an argument which turns physical and attacking a gay man because he is a "faggot" and you are disgusted by gay men. The first example is random and not based on sexual orientation, the second would have never happened had the victim NOT been gay, thus the MOTIVATION based on the attackers THOUGHTS was because of sexual orientation.

[gorfle]

11. Accident vs. crime.

I shoot at a home invader and miss him and hit and kill a person on the street. You gun down someone because they looked at you funny. Both are crimes. The motivation (thought) is different, the charges will be different, and the punishments will likely be different.

I do not believe the first example would be a crime, rather it would be an accident.

Here's a better example. I kill you because you're gay. I kill you because you slept with my wife. Either way, I set out specifically to kill you. The reason why doesn't really matter, because intentional murder is intentional murder, and should have no bearing on the punishment.

Here's another example. I beat you up because you're gay. I beat you up because you are wearing funny clothes. Either way, I set out specifically to beat you up. The reason doesn't really matter, because assault is assault.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Still a crime, hate to break it to you.

They could consider a number of charges depending on my motivation!

In your first example, I wouldn't have been killed had I NOT BEEN GAY. You would have had NO MOTIVATION to kill me. The second reason, while possibly being pre-meditated, would be murder and the MOTIVATION would be considered, as would a few other things, thereby changing the CHARGES and PUNISHMENTS.

The "reason" DOES matter, it is already a part of our legal system.

Degrees of murder in the United States
Before the famous case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, most states distinguished two degrees of murder. While the rules differed by state, a reasonably common scheme was that of Pennsylvania, passed in 1794: "Murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree (or capital murder in some states that carry the death penalty); and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree."<76> "Murder one", as the term was popularized by novels and television, carried a penalty of death, or life in prison, while the penalty for "murder two" was generally around 80 years in prison. After the Supreme Court placed new requirements on the imposition of the death penalty, most states adopted one of two schemes. In both, third degree murder became the catch-all, while first degree murder was split. The difference was whether some or all first degree murders should be eligible for the most serious penalty (generally death, but sometimes life in prison without the possibility of parole).

The first scheme, used by Pennsylvania and the most common<77> among other states:
First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.
Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
Third Degree Murder: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim).
The second scheme, used by New York among other states, as well as the Model Penal Code:
First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders. Note that a "regular" premeditated murder, absent such special circumstances, is not a first-degree murder; murders by poison or "lying in wait" are not per se first-degree murders. First degree murder is pre-meditated.<78> However, the New York Court of Appeals struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional in the case of People v. LaValle, because of the statute's direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock in the penalty phase.
Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.<79>
Similar schemes to Pennsylvania are used in California and Massachusetts. Similar scheme to New-York is used in Texas, but first-degree murder is called "capital murder".

Other states use the term "capital murder" for those offenses that merit death, and the term is often used even in states whose statutes do not include the term. As of 2009, 35 states and the federal government have laws allowing capital punishment for certain murders and related crimes (such as treason, terrorism, and espionage). The penalty is rarely asked for and more rarely imposed, but it has generated tremendous public debate. See also capital punishment and capital punishment in the United States.

In death penalty-states with the New-York scheme, first degree murder itself is eligible for the death penalty. In death penalty-states with the Pennsylvania scheme, first-degree murder must involve an additional aggravating factor for being eligible for the death penalty. source

[gorfle]

14. Why does it matter?

In your first example, I wouldn't have been killed had I NOT BEEN GAY. You would have had NO MOTIVATION to kill me.

And for someone killed because they slept with someone's wife, if they hadn't slept with someone's wife there would have been no motivation to kill them.

And for someone killed because they were dressed differently, if they hadn't dressed differently there would have been no motivation to kill them.

The question is, why does killing someone because they are gay warrant a different punishment than my other two examples?

I don't think it does.

I'm content with the existing degree system you cited. I don't think we need a "gay degree".

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Why does it matter?!

"And for someone killed because they slept with someone's wife, if they hadn't slept with someone's wife there would have been no motivation to kill them.

And for someone killed because they were dressed differently, if they hadn't dressed differently there would have been no motivation to kill them."

Notice ANYTHING those two statements have in common? CHOICE. Killing me because I am gay matters, because I have nothing to do with that characteristic. It is simply a part of me. And, before you take this to the next idiotic level, so often seen in right-wing arguments, even if a choice, such as religion, hate crimes are not a singular attack, it is an attack on a community!

You don't think we need a gay degree? Have a problem with sex, religion, national origin, RACE? Or, is it just the "gay degree?"

I suggest you re-read the wiki sub-set and learn that motivation, intention, THOUGHT, already MATTERS!

[gorfle]

20. Yes.

I suggest you re-read the wiki sub-set and learn that motivation, intention, THOUGHT, already MATTERS!

Yes, and as I said, I'm already content with the existing degree system you cited.

If a criminal has committed murder in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree, why should there be additional punishment because the criminal didn't like gay people?

You don't think we need a gay degree? Have a problem with sex, religion, national origin, RACE? Or, is it just the "gay degree?"

I think it would be equally stupid to append additional punishments on people for killing someone because of sex, religion, national origin, or race. It's either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, and that's that. Why should there be special clauses based on what the perpetrator thought about his victim?

[insleeforprez]

17. Hate crimes have additional effects

I believe the purpose of hate crime laws is to recognize that a crime perpetrated against someone *because of a certain characteristic* does more than hurt the victim; it inspires fear among those who share that characteristic. Because the crime causes more hurt, it makes sense to have a sentence enhancement. Reasonable people can disagree, however, it should be noted that race and religion (among other categories) are currently 'protected;' this is merely an extension, not an invention.

[Tyo]

23. Bingo!

Hate Crime is kind of a misnomer imo. I think that they should be called, "Crimes of Intimidation" or something along those lines. They are perpetrated against people whose only offense is to be guilty of being of the "wrong" race or sexual orientation in the eyes of their attacker(s). And the message in the attack, whether overt or implicit, is that anyone who shares that race or orientation can expect the same kind of treatment. It sends a message to an entire group that they are not welcome and that they are targets, not for anything that they've done but for what they are.

[gorfle]

27. I can see that.

Good analysis.

[tbyg52]

10. Okay then - how about the difference between negligent homicide and murder?

Both crimes last I heard. And different sentencing guidelines, last I heard.

[gorfle]

12. You have a point.

You have a point, but I still think it's a stretch to compare accidental or negligent killings with hate crimes, which are anything but accidental.

[tbyg52]

15. I'm *not* comparing anything accidental to hate crimes - I'm comparing the murder.

Edited to add:

My gosh, are you just *determined* not to get the point?

OK, how about second degree murder vs first degree murder? I'm not a lawyer, but the difference, as I understand it, is in the motivation and the planning. *Now* do you get it?

[gorfle]

21. Yes, I get it.

As I have already said, I am satisfied with the existing degree system already in place.

1st degree murder is 1st degree murder. Beyond that, there should not be any special consideration just because the victim was gay or the perpetrator didn't like gay people. Or people of a certain race. Or people of a certain gender. Or people of a certain nationality.

Tacking on additional punishment because of such thing says, in effect, that such people are more important than everyone else, and thus worthy of additional punishment when they are killed.

[tbyg52]

22. Hmmmm.......

>>As I have already said, I am satisfied with the existing degree system already in place.

Well, that's not what you said at first. Here's what you said at first.

>>Hate crime equals thought crime.
>>If you commit a crime, the penalties should be the same regardless of why you committed it.

And I don't think the two go together. You seem to be indicating you're OK with *some* delving into the motivation, etc., you just draw the line at crimes directed toward people because the group they are in. I would submit that's *worse* than anything you could feel against an individual.

And, yes, I'm aware hate crimes don't usually apply to the "in" group. Lucky them.

However, I am officially through arguing - after the contradiction I pointed out above, I don't see any reason to continue.

[gorfle]

24. Yes, I was wrong.

Well, that's not what you said at first. Here's what you said at first.

>>Hate crime equals thought crime.
>>If you commit a crime, the penalties should be the same regardless of why you committed it.

Yes, I was wrong, as others had pointed out, there is already a degree system that takes into account whether the killing was deliberate, or accidental, etc. Here are the most common degrees of murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States

1. First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.
2. Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
3. Third Degree Murder: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim).


I think this is a sufficient set of hierarchy for murder classifications. Intentional, premeditated murder, as an accomplice, and everything else.

It would seem to me that any murder that was a direct result of killing someone because, for example, they were gay, that this would already be classified as first degree (intentional) murder.

And I don't think the two go together. You seem to be indicating you're OK with *some* delving into the motivation, etc., you just draw the line at crimes directed toward people because the group they are in. I would submit that's *worse* than anything you could feel against an individual.

Basically, today it looks like the law only cares about two motivations: Did you intend to kill them or did you not intend to kill them.

I think this is sufficient delving into motivations for murder. Beyond this, why does it matter what the reasoning was? Is first, second, or third degree murder worse because the perpetrator hated his victim for some reason? I don't think so.

[FreeState]

25. Your missing something here

The hate crimes bill will make federal funds from the Justice Department available to local law enforcement organizations to aid in investigating crimes against gays, lesbians and trans people. The bill gives the Justice Department power to investigate a crime if the perpetrator is motivated by the proposed categories.

Many crimes against GLBT individuals are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because of lack of funds (When Matthew Shepherd died they actually had to fire officers to have enough money) or because the crimes take place in areas were local law enforcement has similar beliefs as the criminals and wont press charges looking the other way. THe proposed law will make both of these injustices a thing of the past.

[gorfle]

26. I guess I'm going to have to look at it like affirmative action.

I guess I'm going to have to look at it like affirmative action. It's wrong at face value to assign extra police funding and investigators to crimes against certain people over other people, but until the tide of prejudice turns perhaps it is a necessary evil.

[FreeState]

29. What groups of people is this putting over other people? N/T

[Neecy]

28. Why are we comparing apples to oranges?

I don't compare two crimes - I compare a hate crime against one that wasn't committed at all.

Say a couple of lowlifes decide to loiter around the exit to a gay club so they can bash a couple of gay men. This is their complete motivation. Say they beat the shit out of someone and, as he falls to the pavement he hits his head and dies.

Would these same lowlifes have committed murder, accidentally or not, against any other segment of society? No. They were deliberately targeting gay men. These people, by far, commit their crimes specifically against ONE community with the intent of intimidating everyone within that community. Their hatred is the only motivation. And because of the impact that hatred can have on a community - any community, be it gay, latino, black or asian - there should be a charge for that.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Oh well.

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

6. Oh FFS

Not this shit again. :eyes:

[Sapphocrat]

7. ...

For those who think hate-crime laws are unnecessary, and/or bestow "special rights"

[t0dd]

8. go away

:eyes:

[JackBeck]

18. The original Hate Crimes legislation passed in the 1960s.

Would you like to share with the group when a "thought crime" was persecuted over the last 40 years under that established law?

[Wednesdays]

16. K&R

:kick: