U.S. House passes hate crimes act

[kweerwolf]

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a hate crimes act in a bipartisan vote on Wednesday. The measure gives law enforcement officers the tools to prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

<snipping out various quotes, including some self-serving babbling by the Log Cabin Repugnantcans>

The measure, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, was passed as an amendment to H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act.

The vote came two days after a jury in Northern California convicted two men of second-degree murder for the killing of transgender teen Gwen Araujo. The jury, however, was not convinced the killing was a hate crime.

Thirty Republicans joined one independent and 194 Democrats in supporting the hate crimes legislation, according to Log Cabin.

http://www.planetout.com/news/election/article.html?2005/09/14/1

[hughee99]

1. Good news, but could somebody help me out here...

what are the "tools to prosecute hate crimes". What did the bill actually provide for? I tried looking up the text of the bill, and found it here http://www.theorator.com/bills109/issues/crime.html but I didn't see anything in here related to hate crimes. Did I miss something?

[kweerwolf]

2. I believe what "tools to prosecute hate crimes" means ...

... this from the text of the bill: "(10) many States have no laws addressing violence based on the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, of the victim, while other States have laws that provide only limited protection."

Not all areas of the country recognize (or even collect data on) hate crimes committed against gay and lesbians (and now transgender persons, under the new bill). The new bill helps to make hate crimes laws a bit more uniform throughout the country. It's similar to the local situation regarding non-discrimination against LGBTs. I happen to live in a city where such discrimination is illegal (though the maximum fine you can receive for discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is $500). However, those rights don't travel with me once I cross into another jurisdiction two blocks away where I could be legally fired, denied housing, etc., for being gay.

The original post has one of the early articles on the bill. If you want a more in depth article, check out this one from the New York Blade:

http://www.nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2472

[TaleWgnDg]

5. I'm wondering if your question was answered . . . ??

.
I'm wondering if your question was answered . . . ??

Broadly speaking, the "tools to prosecute hate crimes" is the inclusion of a certain named-minority class of people that must not be discriminated against on the basis of their named-minority status. That "class of people" is then included into a so-called "hate crimes" law.

To clarify that . . . when GLBTs are expressly targeted for protection in a so-called "hate crimes" law, then that means if the perpetrator of the crime injures (or kills) someone who is GLBT because of their GLBT status, then the perpetrator is charged with the "hate crime."

The turning issue is how to prove in a criminal court of law that the perpetrator of the crime injured or killed the victim due to the victim's status as GLBT? And, the answer to that question is facts and circumstances. Sometimes the perpetrator says, "YOU S.O.B. FAG" during the perpetration of the crime or some other expletive, and/or other admissible evidence will prove the perpetrator's actions as anti-GLBT-based.

BTW, this issue works both ways. By that I mean that a GLBT person may be charged with a "hate crime" if that GLBT person were to injure or kill a non-GLBT SOLELY because of the victim's non-GLBT status. Once again, the facts and circumstances must be proven in a criminal court of law to substantiate these allegations.

All that being said, the unfortunate reality is that some people get confused as to why a "hate crime" to protect certain minorities is made law. Why give some people "special rights?" These people feel that all crime is based on hate. They do not understand or appreciate that GLBT have a history of being, and continue to be, targeted SOLELY because of their GLBT status. And that is why so-called "hate crimes" are law. A federal law will fill in the blanks where some states have no protections or do not enforce existing laws re GLBTs. A federal law will also make protections universal across America so that GLBTs will know their protections will be carried uniformly state-to-state, as will potential perpetrators.

This new bill just passed in the U.S. House will go to the U.S. Senate. There it will surely pass as it has in the past. However, I am wondering whether Dumbya will sign it into law. He may since it is an amendment tagged onto a child protection law; that is, if the Senate leaves it as is.

I hope this gives you the answer that you were seeking. Or perhaps others will read this and then understand what is a "hate crime" and why include GLBTs.


.

[hughee99]

7. I'm still not really clear on what exactly was accomplished...

What new powers are available to prosecutors? What were prosecutors NOT able to do before this bill that they are now able to do?

[TaleWgnDg]

8. Before the inclusion of GLBT in the federal "hate crimes law" . . .

Before the inclusion of GLBT in the federal "hate crimes law" . . . GLBTs that were physically attacked because they were GLBTs were subject to the various laws or lack thereof, state-to-state, as well as the willingness of state prosecutors to prosecute existing state laws.

In other words, GLBTs may have the physical attack against them prosecuted or not depending upon the vicissitudes of city, county, and state laws that varied state-to-state, and also subject to state prosecutors (un)willingness to prosecute wherever the physical attack may have occurred.

On the other hand, if the federal "hate crimes" bill becomes federal law, then the federal "hate crimes law" adds uniformity and the ability to prosecute against perps. Thus, GLBTs are better protected uniformly across America, and perps are on notice that they are subject to federal prosecution across America which again adds protection for GLBTs. As well as states and their prosecutors are on notice that their feet may be put to the fire whenever a federal prosecutor comes in willing to prosecute u/ the new federal "hate crimes law" wherein before state prosecutors had no viable check on them.

In addition, a federal "hate crimes law" has the potential to add more jailtime for perps. This, too, puts perps on notice that their illegal act may give them additional jailtime which in turn adds more protection for GLBTs.

All-in-all, any criminal law that is legislated has a purpose to stop certain negative behavior. Here, the negative behavior is physical attacks against GLBTs because they are GLBTs, and as such to stop such behavior. If not to stop than to lessen such behavior and to punish those who continue to perpetuate such behavior.

Again, this "hate crimes" protection for GLBTs is not yet federal law because it has passed, only, in the U.S. House but not the U.S. Senate nor has it been placed upon GWBush's desk as yet. It's a landmark passage in the U.S. House because the House has been rightwing for quite awhile and not empathic w/ the civil rights of gays. Similar bills have passed in the Senate. The question remains whether GWBush will sign this into law. However, since this GLBT protection law is an amendment attached to a group of child protection laws, he may sign it into law. That is, unless the Senate passes a different version of this bill.
.

[hughee99]

9. Okay, I think I understand...

It won't really make the prosecutors job easier, by giving them some power that they don't have. It will (if it passes) make the laws more uniform, and can add extra jail time, but it won't really make the difference between someone being convicted and going free, provided the prosecutor is doing their job. It also acts as a safety net against prosecutors who aren't doing their job by giving the federal govt. authority to prosecute a crime when the state won't. I think I see what the benefits are now. Thanks.

[closeupready]

10. There was a case posted in this forum not long ago, in which

the KC responding police officer told the victim essentially that by responding to the call of an attack upon the victim, they were simply doing the victim a favor, didn't have to respond if they didn't want to respond because the victim was lesbian.

Under this act, they no longer have that discretion (if they ever did, which I'm not convinced of).

[kweerwolf]

11. True, closeupready

I'm in KC and remember that case well. The cops were also reluctant to classify the attack in which one fo the victims was hit with a baseball bat as a bias crime. (No doubt because it would have created extra paperwork for them.)

My understanding is that it has since been classified as a hate crime after the local Anti Violence Project and several local politicans got involved with the effort.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for hate crime prosecution is that classifying a crime as a hate crime does create extra work for cops and prosecutors who figure the perpetrators are going to be prosecuted anyway if they are caught. But they don't always realize the importance of maintaining a nationwide database of hate crimes to spot trends in bias-motivated attacks.

[Ian David]

3. This also protects straight people from crowds of angry gays...

You would think that people so convinced that gay people were bent upon destroying civilization would jump at the chance for a bill to protect people from attacks based upon "perceived sexual orientation."

[kweerwolf]

4. We don't want to destroy civilization ...

... just give it a "queer eye for the straight civilization" makeover.

[Ian David]

6. We need an amendment making it illegal to "shave against the grain"

Nothing pisses-off the Queer Eye guys more than watching their latest pupil shave against the grain of their beard.

[mitchtv]

13. OMG! I never knew it was bad!

Can I at least keep the toaster?
I guess no going out strait bashing for me tonite. I'll put down the chardonnay right now. and my pearl handeled stilletto.

[homaffectional]

12. Now comes the test...

-- for both parties, not just the re-PUKEs

Senator Kennedy (D-MA, natch) has seen that adding TG protections has barely dented the bill's chances of passing the House. He must now take the brave step of introducing a TG-inclusive bill in the Senate (which he has refused to do so far) even if he can't find a single Republican co-sponsor.

The Republicans in both the Senate and the House will have their work cut out for them. In the Senate, 17 out of 18 of the Republicans that voted for the non-TG inclusive version of the Bill that remain in the Senate will have to when (it's inevitable) Kennedy introduces an inclusive version. Keep in mind that at least four of the Republicans (possibly more, I don't know what's going on in every state) were voting on it during an election year, so some may not choose to cast votes in favor of the bill again, especially if it's a TG version, especially George Voinovich of Ohio. On the other hand, several of the 17 will be facing reelection bids, especially Mike DeWine, along with Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee. I don't see Chafee, being the only Senate Republican that comes even close to decency, voting against a TG-inclusive bill, and I think he would be the best person for Kennedy to approach if he needs to make it
a bipartisan effort for the TG-inclusive version. Then there are others such as Ensign, who GLBT activists should field a
well-funded candidate against if Harry Reid balks.

But the major test is if the Republicans in both houses who have voted for the bill, also push the issue with their leadership. Having two versions of a bill that need to be reconciled is a great issue to (as they've done many times in the past) use as an excuse to strip the hate crimes provision from the bill it's attached to. Even if Kennedy introduces a TG-inclusive bill (which will surely pass), getting matching versions of the bill in both houses to pass the muster of the House/Senate Republican conference and stay attached to the bill will be the biggest test of all. This is the best possible time in the world for Bush to most likely sign a bill (especially since this is the perfect tough-on-crime kind of bill that Re-PUKEs love to tout) with the TG-inclusive Hate Crimes Bill attached -- if it got to his desk, something that's never happened in the past, regardless of whether we had a Democratic president or a Republican "pResident".

[bluedawg12]

14. Was it a crime against fashion? wtf?

"The vote came two days after a jury in Northern California convicted two men of second-degree murder for the killing of transgender teen Gwen Araujo. The jury, however, was not convinced the killing was a hate crime." Yea, right it wasn't. hissssss.