The bill provides an added deterrent against those crimes because they are particularly heinous acts. It expands already existing protections for groups based on religion and race; to include other societally maligned characteristics like gender, disability or sexual orientation.

The idea that this is special treatment is utterly wrong and belies a lack of understanding of our legal system. Without hate crime laws the killers of Matthew Shepherd would have gotten only a few months in prison.

That is the power of hate crimes legislation: because the next time you decide to go bash some ‘homos’ brains in (see, motive), you’ll be facing life without parole instead of a few hundred hours of community service. That sobering thought might be enough to stop you, and that will save some lives.

Since we’re just looking at the actions themselves, should “terrorists” just be charged with conspiracy, possession of explosives without permits, vandalism/destruction of property, assault and/or murder and go through the criminal justice system based on that? It seems to me that clearly defined terms can cover gaps in existing law and get rid of the easily-attacked term “hate crime”.

(I’m not a lawyer, so I could be even more wrong than one of them might be on this issue.)

I’m not suggesting that the bar be set at the level where it would affect your garden-variety mugging, random fisticuffs or violent fantasies. Maybe it should be set near the level where Middle Eastern perpetrators (or Jose Padilla) would be quietly shipped off to who-knows-where for long-term storage.

As long as we’re not talking about Orwellian Thought Police, spoiling some thrill-seekers’ weekend plans to go out and put some of “those people” in their place is a good thing, right?

Comment by FactsOnly

Spoken like someone who has no concept of what it means to be discriminated against. Only someone who has never bothered to try to understand what it would be like to live within a society that would consider to you less important or even undesirable to it’s make up as minorities, be that based on race, sex/orientation or whatever would try to dismiss the strain that puts on an individual’s and a communities mind. Perhaps it’s time for an act of good faith on the part of society to prove to those who not only feel, but ARE shut out of gaining the best opportunities that society has to offer that we know you’re as valuable as any and you should have the same chance to achieve without being in fear for your life and safety because of radical elements. We can’t stop ‘em if they want to hurt you but it they do we will be sure that you receive the justice you deserve.

And another funny thought. If this country is the melting pot that it was invented to be, a place where people bring their varied backgrounds and skills, we mix the best of what everyone has to offer and make an even better country… If that’s what this is why should this country not make it a priority to put especially punish those who use those differences, which we use to make ourselves stronger, as a motivation to target, menace and attack people? Why shouldn’t that be a priority in a country that calls itself a melting pot? I mean if it’s those differences we can use to forge compromises that use the very best ideas to make changes then it stands to reason that a hate monger (whatever their particular brand of hate is) doesn’t just harm an individual or a particular group in his crimes. He hurts us all.

What you’re spouting is just a right wing talking point which is meant to do nothing more than say one thing. They’re all whiners. The blacks, the Jews, the Asians, the Hispanics, the Gays, the Women… Boo-hoo… There’s no such thing as racism… or sexism… or homophobia… or xenophobia…. They get too much protection as it is.

What you’re saying is garbage. What you’re saying are the words of every bigot that doesn’t have the cajones to admit they’re bigots.

THAT, my friend, is why this bill MUST PASS.

This has nothing to do with Christianity or censorship, much like the a select few ignorant extremists are trying to misinform Americans with.

This has to do with protecting people who are so prone to being attacked, that even local authorities can’t always be fully trusted to protect the people who deserve protection.

I’ve served my country for several years now.. and in my PERSONAL opinion, a bill like this is EXACTLY why I feel my country is worth protecting.

Comment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
#

A straight white male…

Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

It goes to motivation for the crime. Like lynching did. Get it?

Comment by MisterOwl — May 3, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

This is a very dangerous idea. Who gets to decide what “components” are to be treated “special”? Based on what principles? To whom are you sending the message? Religious zealots who are willing to die for their looney causes? Bigots who are so biggotted that they will try to “purify” their neighbourhoods? Is being robbed and beaten up somehow “better” then being called names and then beaten up?

The thing is simply illogical.

Any “preventive” measures should be aimed at the act of the violence itself, not whatever wacko thoughts were running through the head of the assailant.

Otherwise why not excuse poor drunks and high on crack junkies alltogether — they weren’t doing anything hateful when thet beat up random passer-bys, their minds were simply disfunctional, right?

One can go on like this for a while.

I will repeat, adding additional distinctions to a violent act based on the supposed motivations of the attacker is a slippery slope that can only lead to no good, regardless of any good intentions of those proposing this law.

Along with repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I support this bill and want it to be passed. My concern is that we’ve become too consumed with the same causes of gender discrimination and same-sex marriage protection while those with disabilities enjoy a high umemployment rate, likely much higher than women/minorities/gays. I also believe that the ADA hasn’t been very effective in promoting social/economic equality because its too conservative not enforced well overall.

Any takes, anyone?

Kevin, you really are st*pid on *every* topic aren’t you? You don’t understand how *intent* affects a crime? If someone is killed, you think the *crime* should only be punished, even if it’s an accident, versus a crime of passion, versus pre-meditated? Intent is used in all sorts of crimes, to distinguish exactly *which* crime is used. The point isn’t what “type” of victim, but whether the crime was motivated by hate.

I hate to inform you, but you know *nothing* of American values, criminal justice or basic human decency. You’re a disgusting st*pid fascist pig.

For the disturbing history, see:
“Bush 2000 Hate Crimes Flashback.”

Yes, these acts are already illegal, just like destruction of private property and murder, but there’s another component that needs to be handled somehow.