Does anyone think the new Anti-Hate crime legislation that is being brought before the Senate is dangerous?

Question

It seems like an attempt to actually criminalize certain types of thought. Even though they did strike out any references to free speech in the bill once they have their foot in the door those references could easily return.

Take a look at House Bill H. R. 1592

I am not attempting to defend criminals and hatemongers. This bill is a veiled attempt to bring America hate crime legislation into parity with Canada's where even voicing certain parts of the Bible regarding homosexuality is considered "hate speech".

Crabby how exactly do you determine whether a crime was committed because an individual belonged to a certain group? There's the rub. Unless local and federal judges can learn to read minds then we should scrap legislation like this. Murder is murder and we should leave it at that.

Answer 1

Yes it is dangerous. Your point is well taken. Everyone should call their Senators offices tomorrow. Tell them to vote no on 1592.

Answer 2

No, its not dangerous--nor is it "criminalizing thought."

That kind of hyperbole is always trotted out by the racists and bigots anytime the Congress puts forward such legislation. With varied rhetoric, it was the same crap the KKK and other racists used to block anti-lynching laws in the past.

Here's how this type of legislation works: first, a crime (e.g. a murder) has to have occured. IF (and only if) there is compelling evidence that the crime was motivated by hate (not just that it was white-on-black or whatever) it can be considered a hate crime. The point of this is that it enables federal (or state-level) law enforcement to intervene if local law enforcement can't--or won't--act (as was often the case with lynchings, with things like church bombings in t he civil rights era). Today, we have many jurisdictions where bigoted authorities ignore criminal acts targeting gays or Muslims or hispanic-Americans. This enables the higher levels of government to take over jurisdiction if need be.

It also has the secondary purpose of imposing additional penalties on those wo victimize others simply out of hate. You culd argue with this--but the thinking is this: if apersn is beaten up by a mugger, thats obviously criminal. But if the beating was done simply because the victim was gay and the attacker hates gays, most people consider that more heinous--and therefore worthey of harsher punishment.

BUT-this is important--ONLY actsthat are crimes anyway are ever considered to also be hate crimes. A bigot can talk, demonstrate, or run around dressed in a sheet all they like. But if they decide to vent their hatred on an innocent victim in a way that violates the law, they can be held legally liable for doing so.

Answer 3

Go to prison for posting Jewish jokes! but use gay and blacks as an excuse for the law

Cosponsor Total: 172
(last sponsor added 04/30/2007)
161 Democrats
11 Republicans






About This Legislation:
3/20/2007--Introduced. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses. Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist state,

Answer 4

Hate crime legislation is way too open to abuse. so yes its dangerous. And unnecessary, a judge should use their judgement ( after all thats what their job is ) to give stiffer penalties and sentences to crimes that are aggregious in relation to someone doing something to a person based on these kinds of things.

Answer 5

"And formerly some bozo gets the possibility to erroneously study this with hate SPEECH law handed in different countries, enable me to assert that we are speaking approximately hate CRIMES law right here. " you're stunning approximately that. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, i think of that people who oppose this law are doing so via fact they misunderstand the law to advise "Speech law" as you talked approximately. so they're no longer professional-hate crimes, they're in basic terms mis-counseled with regard to the law. That being reported, i contemplate whether there is likewise some situation approximately non-speech activities that this would criminalize. as an occasion, would or no longer it incredibly is a hate crime if a catholic church(or jewish synagogue...) refused to marry a gay couple or settle for a gay priest (Rabbi...) in keeping with religious doctrine? ought to the priests making those judgements be arrested below this bill? if so, this would stress religious human beings to act against their faith in inner maximum religious settings. If no longer, returned, this desires to be clarified for religious human beings to experience secure. with the help of how, i'm incredibly religious and conservative and that i help this lesislation. i anticipate you particularly have stats to back up your declare!

Answer 6

I do not like hate crime legislation because it creates two classes of individuals who are victims of crimes: Those covered by hate crime legislation and those not covered by hate crime legislation.

I would probably still vote for it seeing I am always for increasing the penalties for crimes.

Answer 7

Yes, crime is crime no matter why it was committed. Crime should all be punished the same regardless of the reasoning behind it. Crimes against women just because they are women and not men are not considered hate crime, why not?

Answer 8

No, because hate groups have been the perpetraitors of some of the worst crimes in US history.
These laws do not elevate one group above another, nor does it seek to control thought. They only seek to control a small segament of extremists of all groups that commit crimes based on their hatred for a particular group of people.
these "hate groups" promote the same ideas as did Saddam, as did Hitler, and as did anyone throughout history that has created genocidal campaigns. So no, it isn't wrong to prosecute them worse than someone who commits the same type of crime just because they lost their wit, or was in a rage of passion.
In America, we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic country, and our laws should reflect that tolerances of difference, and intolerance of bigotry.
It is one thing to dispise someone based on their differences, but it is entirely another, to kill them for it!
Why do you defend the criminal?

Answer 9

I'm a Democrat.

Free speech is number one.

I may speak up against bigotry, sedition, etc.

I'll defend their right to feel that way or speak their ideas every time.

Watch who wants this. Who wants to silence others.

These are the enemies of our republic.

Answer 10

Well hurting someone isn't free speech. However, elevating one group above another in regards to protection is against everything the constitution stands for!

"EQUAL" PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!