Boehner: Protecting People Against Hate Crimes ‘Takes Us Down A Path That Is Very Scary’

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/03/boehner-hate/

Boehner: Protecting People Against Hate Crimes ‘Takes Us Down A Path That Is Very Scary’

Today, the House is voting on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable federal officials to work with state and local officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.” Watch it at link~

The right-wing is wrong. This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”

Transcript:

BOEHNER: It’s yours, yes.

REPORTER: Hate crimes legislation?

BOEHNER: Hate crimes? Yes.

REPORTER: How do you feel about it? What’s going to happen?

BOEHNER: I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t understand it. We’re going to put into place a federal law that says, not only will we punish you for the crime that you actually commit — the physical crime that you commit — but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things about this person before you committed a crime.

I just — I just really don’t understand it. I’ve been opposed to this for a long time and I remain opposed to it.

I mean, it’s a crime on what people were thinking when they were committing an act of violence. How do you walk into court and make a case for a crime because someone was thinking something bad. I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.

[stompk]

1. a crime is a crime

If I beat you up because you are purple why should the crime be any different than if I beat you up because I was in a bad mood ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. So you're saying...

killing somebody because you were driving drunk is the same as killing somebody because they were having an affair?

Very interesting.

[stompk]

8. thats not what I'm saying.

thats a 1st degree vs 2nd degree issue.

intent is intent. planning makes it 1st degree.

the reason you planned it should not matter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. So if I beat somebody up because he's purple..

and I've got tons of anti-purple literature, and I've been hating purple people for years, doesn't that mean I've been intending it?

[stompk]

22. you mean if you haven't done it yet ?

now we need a "pre-crime division".

if you've got the literature and a history of hatred for purple people, it could go a long way to proving intent.

does that make your crime worse than the guy who followed his wifes lover around for weeks to learn his pattern while telling co-workers he hated that cheating b*stard ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. No, after I've been him up.

"if you've got the literature and a history of hatred for purple people, it could go a long way to proving intent."

So then you're arguing in favor of hate crime legislation.

"does that make your crime worse than the guy who followed his wifes lover around for weeks to learn his pattern while telling co-workers he hated that cheating b*stard ?"

It seems to me, stomp, that beating a guy up because he's black and you don't want black people in your neighborhood is quite a bit worse than beating a guy up because you were both drunk, and got in a fight at a ball game.

Wouldn't you agree?

[JackBeck]

31. Get your facts straight. This is not a "thought crime".

If adding the GLBT community to laws that already exist is such an issue with you, then start your movement to overturn ALL the hate crime laws that already exist.

Your slip is showing. Try a different dress size.

[DawnIsis]

33. There is clearly a difference the racist is a threat to everyone of that color the spouse is a

threat only to his wife.

[LostinVA]

100. Wow. Unreal.

[Parche]

47. PURPLE PEOPLE UNITE

Purple people are people too!!!!
We need to unite and pass this bill
Dont pull a Boehner, pass this bill!!!! :bounce: :hi:

[LostinVA]

99. Wow. Unreal.

[legerdemain]

9. You are confusing motive with intent

When you kill someone driving drunk it is unintentional, when you kill someone for having an affair it is intentional. That is the difference.

The other poster was raising the point of why should you be punished differently depending on the motive(belief) behind your action.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. The law makes distinctions for both...

Federal law treats violent crimes differently when they are classified as "acts of terrorism" and to be so defined is a matter of motivation: to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. So we already have legal precedent for providing different penalties for the same criminal offence that is committed for different motivations.

The christian right is, as usual, full of righteous bullshit. This law does not "criminalize thought" -- it provides for enhanced penalties if you commit a felony with a specific motivation. You can still say hateful things about gays and lesbians all you want. If you do it will clubbing them with a baseball bat, you're going to do extra time in prison.

[Matariki]

124. This is perhaps the clearest argument yet.

"to intimidate or coerce a civilian population". And that is what sets it apart from random acts of violence - the intent to intimidate people similar to the victim.

Perhaps that's the real motive behind certain 'religious leaders' being so against including gays and transsexuals in the legislation. The intimidation is something they actually think is desirable.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

135. Ya Think?!

But the real point here is that the enhanced penalties don't kick in unless there is an underlying felony (like assault) to begin with. Simply standing on a street corner spouting anti-gay nonsense (think Fred Phelps) is still protected free speech no matter how offensive it might be. Hate Crimes legislation only covers when you commit a crime for the primary purpose of "intimidating or coercing" a group of people.

Conservatives who oppose this sort of legislation give the appearance that they plan to engage in violent criminal behavior, but want to ensure that they'll do the minimum amount of prison time. Call me old fashioned, but I remember when conservatives were all about law and order. Go figure.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Why? Because there is a social aspect to hate crimes.

When you only kill a person because they are black, white, yellow, gay, or whatever your irrational and unfounded hate for a specific subset of people are...that should weigh differently. We, as a society, need to send a message that we have value both diversity and civility. Hate crimes can start out as individual crimes, but they quickly can lead to pitting segments of people against each other (see Nazi vs. Jew or tutsi vs. hutu or IRA vs. Orange Protestants).

[treestar]

126. That is a good question - there is no motive distinction for other crimes

I mean, Ted Bundy's motive for motive was not considered to be inherently worse than a hitman's motive. Both get the same punishment in theory; it's not considered worse to kill someone for money than to kill someone because you have some inexplicable motive that cannot be understood since you are a nutcase.

I've seen distinctions in victims in laws, where the punishment is more severe for killing a child or an elderly person. So here is a different type of categorizing by victim, perhaps we could see it like that. The trouble with it is that it comes up in any interracial killing, and some of those could have other motives.

There could be something there to justify it - that kind of hatred could lead to copycats more easily, perhaps. If someone kills a purple person because they hate purple people, others who hate purple people could be more likely to get the idea that it is time to rise up against purple people.

[Jamastiene]

139. Certainly sounds like what they are saying, doesn't it?

It's "fool" proof logic, I guess. :eyes:

Great comeback, Bornaginhooligan. :thumbsup:

[JackBeck]

5. And the LGBT community is asking to be included in legislation that already exists.

If you have a problem with that, start a campaign to overturn ALL hate crimes laws.

[LostinVA]

7. Wow. Unreal.

[DBoon]

12. Intent has ALWAYS been part of criminal prosecution

Intent has always been a strong component in the nature of the charges and sentencing.


If you don't like the American legal system you should move to a country more suitable to your views - Iran perhaps.

[stompk]

26. wow

"If you don't like the American legal system you should move to a country more suitable to your views - Iran perhaps."

way to jump off the deep end. please don't drive to my house and shoot my children because you disagree with me.

[DawnIsis]

32. I don't think people are "disagreeing" with you they are pointing out facts of how the law in this

country works, which it appeared by your post you didn't understand or agree with. It's not a debate.

[LostinVA]

102. Wow. Unreal.

[Bake]

41. Well, not exactly

Intent is an essential ELEMENT to a number of criminal offenses, i.e., without the intent there is no crime. Murder, e.g., in its various degrees requires the element of intent.

Motive, on the other hand, is not an element of any crime that I am aware of. Most smart prosecutors present evidence of motive because juries usually want to know "why," but motive is not an element of the crime itself.

Precision matters.

Bake, Esq.

[dsc]

84. It most certainly is

In many, many states killing witnesses is a capital crime. So if I kill you because I don't want you to snitch on me I get the DP if I kill you because you stole money from me I don't.

[Bake]

88. Not the motive but the identity of the victim.

But I'm just splitting hairs, of course.

Bake

[dsc]

89. Then use the several states that give the death penalty for random killings

New Jersey is one. After some delivery people were killed for no apparent reason, some states started giving the DP for random killings.

[HardRocker05]

101. i think that 'motive' is certainly considered as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance

in sentencing. this is nothing new, and it is exactly as it should be.

[DawnIsis]

15. Our law makes a clear distinction already between pre-meditated and accidental murder

and that clearly has to do with the "thought" process and motive of the killer.

Let's say you accidentally shoot your wife while cleaning your gun. The police will interview all your relatives and friends (and hers) and your finances etc to see if you had a MOTIVE to kill her on purpose.

Our entire legal system revolves around motive, the thinking of the killers.

If your motive is to kill someone PURPLE or black based solely on the color of their skin it would be clear at trial you are a danger to society because of the deep seeded illogical hate your have toward "colored" people and you are VERY likely to re-offend.

If you killed someone because you were "in a bad mood" and a psychiatrist examines you and agrees your circumstances made you "temporarily insane" you would be much less likely to re-offend if given treatment.

[Bake]

44. Here's the difference between intent and motive:

Intent: To kill. Period.

Motive: Because he/she was purple. Because he/she cheated me out of money. Because he/she screwed my spouse.

The former is an element of a criminal act. The latter is simply "why you did it."

If I shoot someone because I was cleaning the gun and it accidentally went off, there is no intent to kill; so of course the consequence is going to be different than if I shoot someone because I wanted the bastard to die (i.e., intentionally).

Frankly, the "why I wanted the bastard to die" is important only to the extent that a jury can understand what happened and facilitate convicting the right person. Some here are saying that if I wanted the bastard to die because he was purple, that's somehow worse than if I wanted the bastard to die because he screwed my wife.

How much worse does it NEED to get than "I wanted the bastard to die?"

Bake, Esq.

[DawnIsis]

50. If you want the "bastard" to die because he's purple you are a threat to ALL purple people

if you kill a guy for "screwing" your wife you are not a threat to all men.

[Bake]

53. No, because I can't be everywhere

So therefore I cannot be a threat to "all" purple people. It's a big leap from "I hate all purple people" to "I wanted the bastard dead."

Moreover, your conclusion that I am "a threat to all purple people" implies that it is a crime that I "might" do something. What I "might" do is beyond the realm of law enforcement, legislation, etc.

Bake

[DawnIsis]

57. Clearly you would be a threat to ALL purple people you come in contact with

if your hate is so deep it has already caused you to kill or beat an INNOCENT person you should never get out of jail. Clearly you are radical and extremely likely to re-offend. This crime has no motive toward the dead guy.

If a guy is having an affair with your wife and you kill him you are no where near as likely to re-offend after you've served your sentence. You aren't a threat to every man who commits adultery. This crime has layers of motive toward the dead guy.

[Bake]

56. You can't "accidentally murder" anyone.

If it was an accident, it wasn't MURDER because there was no INTENT.

Our entire legal system revolves around MOTIVE? Where did you go to law school, anyway - Pat Robertson's place, Regent? I think the word you were looking for is "intent." They're two entirely different things but that's not exactly helpful for your argument. Oops. Sorry about that.

Bake, Esq.

[DawnIsis]

58. Motive & intent are both considered by the jury and by the judge at sentencing.

[Bake]

65. Just tell me two things

Where you went to law school, and in what states you're admitted to the bar. Because I think you've been watching too much TV.

The jury always wants to know "why," so smart prosecutors make that part of their cases. But with the exception of "hate crimes", motive is not an element of any criminal offense that I know of. If a prosecutor doesn't prove intent, however, the defendant WALKS, because intent IS an element of many criminal offenses.

In case I'm not making it clear, an "element" is an essential part of the act that is proscribed. Murder, e.g., is "the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied." Comm. v. Carroll, 194 A.2d 911, 914. The elements are (a) the killing of another human being -- i.e., you can't murder a dog, legally speaking; and (b) the INTENT. The criminal statutes in most states are based on the Model Penal Code, which doesn't give a DAMN about WHY you killed the victim, just whether you killed him and you meant to do it.

Bake, Esq.

[DawnIsis]

60. Accidental murder is manslaughter i.e. drunk driving

[Bake]

69. Wrong yet again. Manslaughter is NOT accidental

Manslaughter requires a lesser degree of intent, but it still requires intent. Manslaughter is "the unjustifiable, inexcusable and INTENTIONAL killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation and malice." State v. Banister, Mo.App., 512 S.W.2d 843, 845.

In your example, drunk driving, the intent is RECKLESSNESS, which the law recognizes as a state of mind sufficient to equal intent. "Heat of passion" is another state of mind that might get you a manslaughter but not murder conviction.

You're not a lawyer, so please stop spreading misinformation. You're entitled to your opinion about the social value of hate crime legislation (I happen to disagree with you on it), but please stop opining on the law itself when you're not qualified.

Bake, Esq.

[DawnIsis]

83. To claim that no one without a law degree can speak on issues of law

is pretty unfair. By your own definition of manslaughter "the unjustifiable, inexcusable and INTENTIONAL killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation and malice."

"Without deliberation premeditation or malice" sounds like accidental to me. The drunk driver makes a bad judgment and that leads to a persons death. The death is an accident and the driver is being punished for his judgment which he knew put others lives at risk.

I really think you are splitting hairs so everyone knows your a lawyer. Every time someone posts a legal argument you jump in an correct them just to show off. I won't be responding to your bait anymore.

[Bake]

85. Naah, sometimes I agree with them.

See, e.g., legerdemain's post further down about the difficulty of applying hate crimes legislation. I agree 100%, and stated why I agree.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion about the social value of the legislation. You say I'm splitting hairs. The law itself splits hairs; if you don't believe it, try defending yourself in court sometime. I could care less whether people "know I'm a lawyer," but the fact that I **am** a lawyer gives me, I think, a little more credibility on the subject, don't you agree?

If you need technical advice about a balance sheet, go to an accountant. If you're sick, go to a doctor. If you want good counsel about the law, ask a lawyer. It's just that simple, and you don't like to be wrong.

Bake

[Evergreen Emerald]

I would not say it is "that simple."

Quality is always an issue. Ask Gonzales.

[Evergreen Emerald]

136. It is telling that only this specific part of the hate crime bill

is at issue with the radical-right. I cannot believe they think it is ok to target a specific group of people.

[myrna minx]

19. Criminal intent. n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

23. There is a difference.

If someone is targeted because of who they are (gender, race, ethnicity, religion, non-religion, orientation, etc.), then anyone else who fits into that perceived category is now threatened. It's about ending a vulnerability.

If someone is a vitim of random violence, then while we are all, at some level, threatened, it isn't a crime based on a hatred of one "group."


A KKK lynch mob targeting Black men is different from a group of bored teens beating up random people on the street. The intent it not the same.

An anti-gay group of teens targeting gay teens leaving a LGBT community gathering is different than two guys getting into it in a bar fight. The intent is not the same.

There is an extra malice that can be found in targeting people based on who you perceive they are.

It's also about acknowledging the brutality that particular groups of people have received. While in the past, people looked the other way when a gay guy got his ass kicked just for being gay because, well, "gay isn't normal. He needs the gay kicked out of him." I think, I hope, as a society, we've moved past this frame of thought.

[Midlodemocrat]

28. And we're off.

:eyes:


Whee!!!!!!

[myrna minx]

35. Heh. Here we go again...

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

38. Yup.

Gets old after a while, though.

:hi: yourself!

[Kerrytravelers]

63. Wanna share?

:popcorn:

[ejbr]

55. The fundamental purpose of the legislation

is not to declare that killing someone because of prejudice is more severe than killing/physically attacking someone for other reasons; HOWEVER, as a deterrent for people killing/physically attacking because of bigotry, laws should be put in place to prevent these random acts of violence from occurring. When you have a society that allows "twinkie"* defenses to permit murderers from being sent to jail for an appropriate amount of time due to the "discretion" of judges, then laws need to be in place to remove not only that "discretion" but also any lame excuse for taking it upon yourself to physically attack or kill someone without provocation. The fact that there is any argument AGAINST this only proves why we need to have it.

*In the 1970s, Supervisor White of San Francisco killed Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. They allowed White to get 2 years in jail, yes, that's right, 2 years in jail for killing two people in cold blood basically because Milk was gay. I hope the implication that being gay was so publicly hated that they even reduced the punishment for taking the life of a heterosexual mayor with a wife and kids down to a year in prison is not lost on you. Yes, we are 30 years down the road, but there are still communities where you can find 12 jurors or judges who will reduce the punishment for a gay basher because the victim was gay and they kinda sorta/approve of these actions. (By the way, White committed suicide soon after his release. I'd like to believe that even HE knew that his victims got a raw deal)

[Old and In the Way]

2. So the Republican theme is let your prejudices run wild!

Pandering to their base of people who need to hate someone.

[gratuitous]

4. I'm with you 100%, Mr. Boehner

Now, let's take all those enhanced penalties off the books for people who threaten or kill government officials, including judges, postal carriers and . . . congressmen. After all, a crime is a crime no matter who it's perpetrated against, and why should the people's servants expect any more protection from the law than the people do? Let's get all those inconvenient metal detectors out of federal buildings and courthouses, too.

Whaddya say, Mr. Boehner? Open the doors to the Capitol and the White House and the Supreme Court wide. You go first.

[MotorCityMan]

27. Amen to that, gratuitous!

I remember after Matthew Shepherd was killed, one of the pseudo-preacher's (Falwell or someone of his ilk) was being interviewed. The reporter played a clip of the p-p ranting and raving about the evil's of homosexualtiy.

After, when asked if his words contributed to crimes like Matthew's murder, the denials came fast and furious. It's just words, I'm not responsible for other's actions, etc.

Well, dammit, words DO have consequences! Most of us learn that at a young age and conduct ourselves accordingly. If the so-called-religious right want to keep fostering this hatred, then they can except responsibility when their words cause others to commit crimes.

[Swamp Rat]

112. LOL!

A mind is a terrible thing. :D

[villager]

6. truly, for a Republican, anything that restrains/reduces hate is terrifying indeed...

n/t

[BOSSHOG]

10. And to think, he's making such a statement to placate the gop base

Preachers who hate from the pulpit don't want their hate speech to be called hate speech. It must be so easy living with a conservative brain.

[porphyrian]

11. Boner wishes he understood it enough to explain it.

While I think he's an idiot, I do believe that punishment does very little to prevent crime, especially crimes of passion. The fact that even the death penalty does nothing to prevent murder is one example of the evidence supporting my claim. Regardless, punishment is always after the fact. If we seriously want to address the concept of hate crimes and their prevention, we need to look closely at what causes them, at what brings someone to commit those crimes in the first place. And the answer isn't simple, it's a complex number of things. There are already laws in place to address the things hate crimes address (though the punishment may not be severe enough to those who relate to or empathize with the victims), we don't need to change laws. We need to change peoples' minds, and that can't be done through legislation. Until we address this issue honestly, we will not solve the problem.

OK defensive people, jump my shit.

[stompk]

16. i believe passing laws

to try to make someone "think" a certain way, only makes them resentful.
So now they have to find another "intent" for the crime.

if four green guys are beating the snot out of a blue guy, all the time screaming
"you are not a nice person" - is it no longer a hate crime? what if it is found that group after group of green guys have been ambushing blue guys while yelling "you are not a nice person".

ps. I know this is an absurd argument. that is the whole point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. It's not passing laws to keep people "thinking" a certain way...

It's to keep people from beating up minorities. Why anybody would have a problem with that, I haven't got any idea. Well, I've got one idea.

"ps. I know this is an absurd argument. that is the whole point."

So, you're arguing in favor of hate crime legislation by pointing out the absurdity of anti-hate crime arguments? OK. Good job.

[porphyrian]

39. Beating up people is already against the law.

It's not worse to beat up a minority, is it? It's not OK to beat anyone up.

My problem with passing laws to punish crimes against certain segments of the population more harshly than crimes against everyone else is that it a) doesn't really address what causes people to commit the crime in the first place and b) reinforces the segregation of that segment of the population by giving them "special" treatment. It's not OK to beat anyone up, period. It's not less OK to beat someone up because they have blue skin instead of green skin.

We need to change minds, not laws, to change behavior.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. It's worse to beat up a minority because they're a minority.

Just like it's worse to kill someone with premeditation.

[porphyrian]

45. I don't know that I agree with that.

I don't feel greater loss from the death of a minority than I do from the death of a heterosexual white male Christian. I think it's equally sad. If we are to be equal as citizens, we can't reinforce our differences. We should have equal rights, equal opportunities and equal treatment with regards to the law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. What do you think is worse?

Sex with an adult? Or sex with a child?

[Bake]

51. That comment clearly shows you don't know the difference between intent and motive

Because just like apples and oranges, they're two entirely different things.

Bake

[HardRocker05]

110. well you don't know the difference between right and wrong, and frankly the main application of hate

hate crimes legislation is in prosecuting harassment, assault, etc. as opposed to murder, because presumably anyone committing murder will be getting a severe penalty anyways, but terrorization of a group of people based on who they are can take place by means of 'lesser' crimes that may carry little or no punishment, i.e. vandalism, name-calling, treats, 'minor' assault, etc.

[Bake]

118. Matthew Shepard was murdered.

And since that is the example generally used as well as cited frequently in this thread, or the Byrd murder in Texas (both horrible crimes), I used murder as my example.

To state that I don't know the difference between right and wrong is simply an ad hominem attack that proves nothing.

Further, other statutes are on the books to deal with other examples you cite, many of which would fall under the category of terroristic threatening. I simply see no need for additional laws that muddy the water. Enforce the existing laws to the hilt. If a redneck town doesn't enforce the existing laws, what makes anyone think they're going to enforce additional hate crime laws?

Bake

[JackBeck]

122. This isn't an additional law.

It's adding different groups that have been previously left out of an existing law..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. intent is the desire to perform the act.

The act being harming minorities. Because, say, the Grand Dragon, or the Bible told you to.

[Withywindle]

61. But the laws don't ONLY protect minorities.

What most of them say in states that have them is that a hate crime is defined as a crime against someone based on "race, religion, sexual orientation" etcetera. Nothing in there about minorities specifically getting protection that majorities don't.

A roving gang of gay guys beating a random straight couple to death because they hate heterosexuals would be considered just as much of a hate crime under the law. Which is as it should be. (And if you can find me an example of that EVER happening, I'll be impressed, but, y'know, theoretically.)

[porphyrian]

70. Well, isn't that even more of a reason to not bother with the hate crime law?

That's just saying that if someone shows they might hate the person they're beating up while they do it, they get punished more harshly. Isn't the fact that they're beating the person up in the first place a sign that they probably don't love them?

And yes, your example is probably the most unlikely yet.

[Withywindle]

77. No, it's MORE reason.

I think the point has been made over and over that a hate crime isn't just a crime against that specific victim, it's a crime against all people who share that trait. A lynching is a threat against ALL blacks - "this could be you." A gay-bashing is a threat against ALL gays. And yes, for example, a black gang beating a white person just because he's white is a threat against ALL whites.

Why is terrorism punished differently than other murders? Because it's politicized and intended to spread a message - to terrorize, literally. Do you think it's different to kill an American tourist for his money, or to kill an American tourist to send a message to other Americans and the world that America is the Great Satan or to try to incite war or whatever? Hate crimes are pretty much the same thing.

[porphyrian]

79. Why is the hate crime law any different than the terrorism law?

Your argument for hate crime law is that it terrorizes the group associated with the victim. How isn't that redundant with the terrorism law then? It's not, you say so yourself.

I think the terrorism law is bullshit as well. Assault is already illegal. Battery is already illegal. Unlicensed use of explosives, mass murder, even suicide are already illegal. The terrorism law is simply another redundant law allowing greater punishment to be heaped upon those found guilty. It does nothing to prevent terrorism.

[Withywindle]

81. Well, look at the current political climate...

Even something as obviously deliberate, targeted terrorism as a damn letter bomb isn't officially "terrorism" when it comes from a right-winger and is directed towards a women's clinic.

Yes, assault and battery and murder, etc. are already illegal. but as has been pointed out a lot, intent and motive ARE taken into account by judges and juries when it comes to sentencing, all the time. The specific message that hate crime laws send is that bigotry put into violent action is not tolerated, it's a crime in and of itself. And I don't think that's a bad message to send. Shoplifting and armed robbery are both theft--the latter gets the harsher penalty, even when no one is hurt, because the threat of violence is an additional crime. I suppose that's technically "thought crime" but I don't have a problem with it, do you?

[porphyrian]

86. Yes, intent and motive are taken into account by judges. Why dictate to them...

...how to do their job? Do you think a judge is less sympathetic to a gay victim than to a straight one? Why force additional Legislative Branch-prescribed punishments on every case?

The message you want to send will not be heard by those you want to hear it. Besides, it assumes those who commit the crimes don't already know what you think about bigotry or that violence will not be tolerated. Again, you aren't preventing the crime. To do that, you have to change the minds of those who would commit the crime, and before they do so, not after.

[Withywindle]

98. I can't believe you're even asking this...

Do you think a judge is less sympathetic to a gay victim than to a straight one?

In many cases, absolutely YES. Sad but true. This law would take steps towards preventing that kind of bias being tolerated too.

Funny we should have this argument on the day the news has just broken about Obama being under Secret Service protection after a threat. It's just a threat. A "thought crime" if you will. He's still fine. But the Secret Service takes that seriously, and nobody thinks it's inappropriate that they do. And seriously, why is Obama singled out? Rather obvious, isn't it?

40 years ago, it was taken as a given that murder of a black person would be treated less harshly than murder of a white. Judges and juries winked and nudged at it all the damn time. That's why hate crime laws exist in the first place--because they were necessary, to note that racially-motivated crime was a specific, real problem, and racism was a serious, real problem in getting convictions for some pretty heinous crimes. Do you deny that's true? And if not, do you think the problem has totally gone away? Or that it doesn't apply to, say, arson of a synagogue or beating of a man leaving a gay bar.

[porphyrian]

113. If the problem is with the judges, then let's deal with the judges.

Passing new laws to punish those guilty of crimes already covered by laws does not solve the problem, and can actually cause more.

Judges aren't above the law. If they aren't doing their job fairly, take them to court, fire them, vote someone else in. Don't put a bandaid solution on such a serious problem.

I'm fully aware of our history and the bias of our judicial system, from what laws are passed, through their enforcement, to sentencing. Our justice system, as is, is not just. I want to fix it, not patch the hole until the next election or until other people forget about it again.

[Bake]

120. Obama's not a relevant example.

The Secret Service is assigned to PROTECT him. They haven't arrested anybody. The crime that was committed was the act of making a death threat, which is not a "thought crime" as you seem to imply.

Are judges sometimes wrong? Yes. But don't we decry the sentencing guidelines that bind a judge's hands and preclude any judicial discretion? Three strikes, yer out! It's the same here. Except here, it's YOUR ox being gored.

Enforce the laws on the books, and deal with the bad judges. There are ample ways to do it without writing new laws.

Bake

[Texas Prison Boss]

117. True...but they are not uniformly enforced..

I would have far less of a problem with "hate crime" laws if they were uniformly enforced. According to the FBI compiled crime statistics, blacks commit about 90% of all inter-racial crimes (before you say something like "the the criminal justice system is racist, so of course the statistics are slanted, know that victim self reporting studies back this statistic up to a large degree) yet they are almost never charged under hate crime laws.

In any event, the law should be about punishing people for actions rather than thoughts.

"Hate crime" laws are also redundant as laws exist to punish everything they cover already. As Mr. Bush (who I am no fan of btw) correctly pointed out in regards to the perps in the James Byrd killing "They got the death penalty. What more do you want?"

[porphyrian]

30. Yeah, I think you understand what I'm saying and I understand you.

Beating the snot out of people is already a crime. The problem is that, in your example, green guys hate blue guys enough that they'd beat the snot out of them for no particular reason other than their being blue guys. If we are going to change this, we need to understand what makes these green guys think and act that way, and do something to change their way of thinking. And I agree that we can't do that with laws, at least not directly.

[stompk]

34. thank you.

you summarized what I was trying to say, but was obviously not saying well enough.

[porphyrian]

40. I force my opinion on others all the time...

...so I've gotten pretty good at doing it in a nutshell.
;)

[Midlodemocrat]

36. Your statements make no sense.

The issue here is the GLBT community and the fact that they have been victims of hate crimes for years. They do not have equal rights in this country and the faux christians railing about the evils of their lifestyles makes them easy targets for abuse and hate crimes.

[porphyrian]

43. No, YOUR issue here is the GLBT community maybe. I'm addressing hate crimes.

My statements make perfect sense if you can read them. Hate crime legislation doesn't work because it doesn't do anything other than punish people more for committing crimes against certain segments of the population. Punishment doesn't prevent those crimes from being committed, and hate crime laws are redundant punishment.

If you want to solve the problem of the crimes being committed in the first place, if you want to prevent them, you need to honestly look at what causes people to commit them and change their minds. That cannot be done with any law.

[Midlodemocrat]

46. Um, I wasn't talking to you.

[porphyrian]

48. I don't care. I stand by what I say. - n/t

[DawnIsis]

54. By that logic why punish anybody??????????

If you are saying because a crime can't be prevented it shouldn't be punished based upon the severity of the crime?

People that commit hate crimes based solely on the color of one's skin or lifestyle they are a threat to everyone in that category and will re-offend randomly against innocent people. It is clear to me a longer sentence is needed, just like with child predators.

[porphyrian]

64. I didn't say a crime shouldn't be punished based upon the severity...

...I said punishment shouldn't be more severe simply because the crime was committed against a segment of the population defined along the lines we are trying to remove.

Why punish anybody indeed? It doesn't prevent the crime. Is revenge a good reason? No, but that isn't the only reason for punishment - compensation (at least monetarily) and isolating dangerous individuals from society are why we punish crimes. That doesn't solve the problem, however.

"People that commit hate crimes based solely on the color of one's skin or lifestyle they are a threat to everyone in that category and will re-offend randomly against innocent people."

That statement isn't supported by fact. Some people who commit "hate crimes" are a threat to everyone in their respective category, and some may very well re-offend, but you can't say that's true of everyone. Besides, you are simply supporting my claim that punishment does not prevent the crime.

We need to change minds, not laws, and it won't be a simple fix.

[porphyrian]

66. Dupe. - n/t

[DawnIsis]

A more realistic argument would be

4 straight guys beat one gay guy to death. If the group of 4 guys can provide no explanation for their clearly intentional act and the prosecutors show evidence the four straight guys made a pattern of hateful gay slurs then it's a hate crime. Odds are the 4 had harassed gays before going to this extreme.

[porphyrian]

68. Right, but how does punishing them more solve the problem?

Do you think it will make them hate gay guys less? Do you think it will stop them from beating up more gay guys? And why make it worse to beat up a gay guy because you called him names implicating you hate all gays than to beat up a regular white guy you call a motherfucker? Isn't beating up anyone already unacceptable and against the law?

[LostinVA]

104. Wow. Unreal.

[Occulus]

137. Amusing, though..

I look at that and all I see is "ignored" "ignored" "ignored"

I bet if I log out, I'll just see a bunch of the Usual Suspects. I bet I can even name a couple without even seeing their names or their posts.

[FVZA_Colonel]

14. They just want to keep it so that GLBT individuals can get the shit beaten out of them,

same as has always before, and not have the attackers be treated properly as the waste they are. And they do this under the cloak of "you're trying to steal our religious freedom!"

[myrna minx]

17. So gay bashing is a part of "Christian moral beliefs"!?!

This is beyond disgusting. I don't even recognize Christianity anymore. :-(

[DawnIsis]

24. Religion is the root cause of most of the hatred and murder that has ever taken place

including Bush's religious crusade with the Middle East.

[SmokingJacket]

18. Hm, courts take motivation into account all the time.

That said, I have mixed feelings about hate crimes legislation... seems like it could be *very* tricky trying to define "hate."

[Bobbie Jo]

37. Hmmm...and this is different from the "Patriot" Act how exactly?

:eyes:

Now if you want to talk about treading a "scary path," Boner...

I guess he actually read this one.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Why "protect" gay people?

That really seems to be the question on the minds (if they have them) of these people. Hate Crimes laws are very easy to understand: if you attack someone based on their membership to a certain group, then you get extra punishment because you have acted in a way that not only harms the individual, but is a threat to that victim's community and exhibit severe anti-social behavior in a multi-cultural society.

[cooolandrew]

52. Takes America on a great path, a more peaceful America is good for all concerned.

[legerdemain]

59. In theory this law sounds like a nice idea but in reality its enforcement can be problematic

A few examples:

Situation A: Attacker is openly homophobic with lots of anti-gay literature,etc. at home, he walks into bar and punches person he knows to be gay without saying a word, no slurs nothing. Can his anti-gay materials be introduced to prove he committed a federal offense or is it just a misdemeanor?


Situation B: Attacker is the same homophobe, he walks into bar and punches the first person he sees after a bad day at work, victim happens to be gay. Can his anti-gay materials be introduced to prove he committed a federal offense or is it just a misdemeanor?


Situation C: Same attacker, goes into bar and attacks person he thinks is gay and calls him lots of names,etc. Victim turns out not to be gay. Federal offense or misdemeanor?

Situation D: Same situation as C except attacker assaults 2 people he thinks are gay, 1 is gay 1 is not, are they both protected by federal law or just the gay victim?


These are just a few situations that could arise under this law.

[JackBeck]

62. This is adding a minority group to a law that already exists.

And has existed for quite some time.

I see no problem adding a group to a law already on the books. If you disagree with the law that already exists, fight to overturn that law.

In the mean time, I'll keep fighting to make the GLBT community more than just second class citizens in this country.

[Bake]

138. Just to be clear

I have no problem whatsoever with adding the GLBT community to the existing legislation. My issue is with the underlying law itself, i.e., the need for "hate crimes" laws at all. But if we're going to have such laws, then absolutely they should be included.

Bake

[Kerrytravelers]

67. Every situation has more details than provided in the examples.

Throwing incomplete situations on a message board and thinking it proves we don't need hate crime legislation doesn't work. The laws and reality include important details that are being left out in your post.

[legerdemain]

71. Would you care to provide any of these possible details

Hypotheticals like these are commonly used by courts to determine if statutes are too broad, too narrow, etc. and factor heavily into their decisions on whether to uphold the particular law.

In particular I was curious how this part of the law would be construed:

“evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

[Kerrytravelers]

72. They are your hypotheticals. You add the details.

Quite frankly, your posts reads like a leading question. You are setting up situations where you have left out details. When someone responds, you then throw in the details you left out before, thereby creating an endless circular argument. Then, you say that it is clear that these hate crime laws are foolish. We have seen it time and time again here at DU on this and many other topics. So, no, I'm not falling for it. If you have a specific situation, it might be an interesting read, but I decline an invitation to participate in leading questions and circular arguments that take the question off the need for hate crime legislation and instead become a flaming thread of word play.

[JackBeck]

74. ....

:applause:

[Kerrytravelers]

75. I spend a lot of time on the Choice board. We've grown accustomed to this.

*takes a bow*

[Bake]

82. They're NOT leading questions, but interesting and valid hypotheticals.

And while every real situation of course has other details, those in the hypotheticals posed by legerdemain may be the only details that distinguish the exampe, hence the only RELEVANT details. Courts do this all the time. Read transcripts of Sup.Ct. arguments -- that's what the justices do.

I agree with legerdemain; the legislation poses serious problems both with application and enforcement.

By the way, a leading question is one that presupposes a certain answer, e.g., "Isn't it true that on the night of X you shot and killed Mr. Purple?" THAT'S a leading question. The kind you can't use on direct examination but may use on cross examination.

Bake, Esq.

[Kerrytravelers]

93. While I appreciate your legal knowledge being an attorney, I don't necessarily agree with you.

In a court of law they may not be considered leading questions, but we're not in a court of law. We're on a message board. It is a tactic to play word games. I would refer you to the Choice board for numerous examples of this tactic- how it use to work and how now it is called exactly what it is.

Edited to add: And now, as we are no longer discussing hate crime legislation and now bantering over whether something is a leading post or not, we have successfully changed the subject.

[legerdemain]

97. It's amazing how many people blindly support laws without bothering to look past the title

Who cares what it says or how it will be applied

Defense of Marriage Act, sounds good to me who doesn't want to defend marriage

Patriot Act, you would have to be unpatriotic not to support this

Hate Crime Laws, hate crimes are bad we need to ban them

[Kerrytravelers]

115. It's a stretch to say we're all blindly supporting these laws.

We simply disagree with you.

[treestar]

127. You are right, it involves a certain amount of mind-reading

In the case of gays, it is even harder, suppose Attacker says he didn't know Victim was gay - in some cases, it might be necessary to prove his knew this about the specific victim.

It could just add time it takes to the courts to decide cases. So to get the greater punishment, we need greater court time. And we are told that the courts are overburdened.

[The Stranger]

73. Christian Fundamentalism is White Supremacy Warmed Over.

Connect the dots -- they are everywhere.

[Initech]

76. Why do people listen to Dobson and their ilk? They are irrelevant.

[JackBeck]

80. If they were irrelevant, than Bush would not have pledge to veto this bill.

[Javaman]

78. "but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things"

Isn't that the same reason the detainees are in gitmo?

by his logic then the poor slobs in gitmo should be released.

bonejob needs to get his shit straight.

[Jacobin]

87. I'm not in favor of this either

I've always been uncomfortable with this trend. First it was "capital punishment if you kill a policman, or a district attorney" and now I think a few other vaunted "more important" personages have been added to that list in some states.

A crime is a crime and the status of the victim should not matter. Where crimes are not punished, I have no problem with the feds moving in to make sure the laws are enforced.

But basing a crime on the victim's status does not appear to make any real sense. It says "some people are more important than others" which the law should not do.

Does that make me a RW radical?

[Bake]

90. I couldn't agree more!

The definition of murder is the "... killing of a human being ..." Isn't that inclusive enough? Seems to cover everybody.

Bake

[Lurking Dem]

91. No it makes you confused.

The intent of a hate crime is to instill fear/terror and serve as a warning to a population of people who share traits with the victim. It isn't the status of the victim that determines the basis of the crime.

A person's house getting tagged by a drunken 14 year old is a property crime. A Jew's house having swastikas painted on it or an African Americans house having a cross burned in his yard is more than a property crime.

Gay people aren't asking to be considered considered "more important than others" here. They are asking to be recognized as a class needing specific legal remedy from a malevolent undercurrent in society whose purpose is to psychologically damage the aggregate.

[JackBeck]

92. Thank you.

And most people also forget that hate crimes perpetrated against the gay community often feature "overkill".

[Kerrytravelers]

95. Well said. Thank you.

:applause:

[insleeforprez]

106. That is certainly the effect

but is it the intent? Certainly it is in many contexts, such as lynch mobs in the Jim Crow south. But if someone beats up a gay person because they hate gay people, are they intending to instill fear and terror upon the rest of the gay community?

I'm not saying that's not the intent, rather I am saying that you need to *prove* that when you are making your argument.

[Lurking Dem]

108. That's what courts of law are for.

If you can't *prove* it then you can't make the case for hate crime.

[insleeforprez]

109. Under this legislation

all that you would have to prove was that someone committed a crime because they disliked gay people, rather than prove that they were intending to instill fear in the gay community. To me that is a pretty large distinction.

[DawnIsis]

114. How would someone who attacks a gay person because he "dislikes gays"

NOT instill fear in the gay community? It's the random act itself that instills the fear in the entire community because it could have been anyone of them.

And I would point out if your irrational "dislike" has driven you to attack an innocent person then I would say the odds are HIGH that hate would drive you to do it again.

[insleeforprez]

116. As I said earlier

The effect of any crime against a gay person because he is gay WILL be to intimidate. However, one must question if that was the INTENT.

Sometimes, that will be the intent, as with vandalizing a Jewish home with swastikas or leaving a young, bloodied Matthew Shepard to die in a field. However, if someone thinks to themselves, "these homos are annoying me" and kills someone, is he *trying* to intimidate the entire gay community?

Perhaps that's a trivial example, but I am sure there are crimes that would fit this legislation that are NOT intended to intimidate or instill fear in a larger community.

In fact, this debate has solidified my position on this matter. I fully enhanced punishment for a crime if it can be shown that the *intent* of the crime was to intimidate or instill fear, rather than just the effect.

Edit: I am a gay male. I don't know if this gives me any more credibility, and it *shouldn't* matter, but it invariably does provide context.

[Jacobin]

123. Let's think about this a bit and consider unintended consequences

As an example and one I would argue of millions like it, I happen to have contempt for fundamentalist christians. If I lived in the Muslim world, I'd probably have contempt for fundamentalist Muslims, but since I have never had the opportunity to interact with them on a personal basis, let us just leave it at that.

From time to time these goombahs like to try to get books banned from the public library, like "Catcher in the Rye" and some other classics, none of which these dolts ever read, but since they are passed along on a list on the internet, there it goes. More than likely, their kids are now teenagers, and they are freaked out about sexuality or whatever, and so they do what any normal, ordinary, knuckledragging rural American ignoramous would do and they want to burn or ban books.

So, if I were to hold a protest in front of a fundie church and gather a group of people, and call the TV crews and have a Bible burning ceremony, and if I were to honestly say that I have nothing but utter contempt for these people and what they are doing and that this was a form of protest, I would think this could be classified as a 'hate crime'. fine put me on the stand. and I'll tell you, yes I have nothing but contempt for these cretins who claim to be 'people of god' and yes I'd just as soon they all pack their bags and run off a high cliff. I'm a 'hater' and I lit a fire and burned their 'sacred book' to try to intimidate them, because they are trying to rid public libraries of some of the finest work of men's minds in recent memory.

Your legislation would put me in jail, too.

What you want is extraordinary punishment for people who hurt people YOU feel close to. I'm sure you would say, "oh, the law wouldn't do what you say, its only for gays and people of color, etc", but you know what? You are simply wrong.

And don't give me any crap about 'prosecutorial judgment' on these things. I used to work in a D.A's office when I was in law school and those fucking nazis 'overcharge' on every crime to get the best plea bargain they can. Same thing was said about the Patriot Act. "Oh don't worry its just for terraists". Well, they've used it against titty bars among other things.

When you want congress to pass a law to make something illegal ( I.E. put someone in jail for conduct you dont like) you damn well better make sure that the practicality of enforcing it doesn't lead to some other gawdawful problem, like the one mentioned above.

[JackBeck]

125. Wrong.

Religion is already protected under current hate crime laws.

The legislation that was voted on today would add other groups to laws that already exist.

If you have problems about the current law that existed before today, call your legislator. In the mean time, I'll continue to fight for the GLBT community to become more than second-class citizens in this country.

[Jacobin]

130. What statute would that be?

That deals with 'religious hate crimes'?

[JackBeck]

132. Here ya' go.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm

[depakid]

94. If it did actually silence the far right hate mongers

I'd be even MORE enthusiastic.

Of course, the Republican arguments are disingenuous and nothing more than bigotry in disguise.

Par for the course....

[treestar]

128. Yes, it does make you wonder how they would react to a hate crime

directed specifically against Christians or Republicans - their general double standard thinking would dictate that these same types of laws would be OK in spite of their generalized objections now.

[JackBeck]

129. The current law already protects hate crimes based on religion.

Religious groups are already protected. We're just asking for a seat at the same table, while they throw sand in everyone's eyes with this new legisaltion that passed in the House today.

[Marnieworld]

96. It's beyond just assault

A lot of posts here are debating assault vs. a hateful assault.

This is legislation that also talks about hiring discrimination, housing discrimination, and the ability to refuse service to someone based on their preceived LGBT status. It's not about one kind of person being beaten up vs. another. It's about the ability to deny people basic aspects of society open to everyone else. A restaurant or hotel should not be able to deny you based on their hatred.

It's an existing law and just adding another group is all.

[insleeforprez]

103. I believe that is a separate piece of legislation

This bill deals with hate crimes, while the legislation to which you are referring is the "Employment (or 'Employers' I forget) Non-Discrimination Act."

[Bluerthanblue]

107. what an ass dobson continues to be- beliefs aren't

what this bill is targeting-
it is the criminal and dispicible actions that the beliefs give birth to that are.


"I never knew you"

'christ' ian my .......

[napi21]

119. Whaat actually constitutes a HATE CRIME"?

I haven't read the bill that was passed today, and I'm wondering just how they defined a hate crime.

Before you go all crazy on me, I do know if someone assaults another person because he's gay, or for racial preejudices, that's considered hate. I'm just wondering how broadly this term can be expanded? For instance, is it a hate crime if you assault a Walmart manager just because he represents WM to you? Is it a hate crime if you shoot a really stupid driver who cuts you off in the interstate just because you hate stupid drivers? OR you shoot three teens who are selling drugs on the corner because you HATE drug use?

Do you see what I mean? At what point does or COULD criminal behavior be determined to be a more heavily punished "HATE" crime?

I'm really afraid that some less than ethical lawyers could really misuse this law!

[flvegan]

121. Tough shit, Boehner, Dobson...HR 1592 passed

Props to babylonsister (again) for the op.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3248706

More on the bill:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Federal_Legislation/Hate_Crimes_110th_Factsheet/The_Local_Law_Enforcement_Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act.htm

[AX10]

131. The GOP is the party of racists!

[BlooInBloo]

133. Makes sense. The scariest thing to a bigot would naturally be hate crime laws.

[tyedyeto]

134. And the nailed-filled pipe bomb found at an abortion clinic recently...

Has nothing to do with terrorist activity or is considered a hate crime.

It was only aimed at a few fetus-killing women, so who gives a fuck? :sarcasm: