House could vote today on S.1105 "Hate Crimes" bill?

Question

The Senate will be voting, as early as today, on S.1105, the so-called "hate crimes" bill. Under S.1105, acts of crime committed against members of "certain protected classes" - including those who identify themselves by their "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" - would warrant more intense prosecution and greater penalties than the very same acts committed against heterosexuals. For those who think I am exaggerating here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026

see how homosexuals murdered heterosexuals but were not charged with a hate crime. Had the roles been reversed - the victims homosexual and the perpetrators heterosexual - they could have been charged. Under S.1105, homosexuals are a "protected class" while heterosexuals are not.

All crimes are hateful--and personally I am all for locking them up --but the liberal courts let em go - especially when their in a 'protected class'.......do you support this lunacy? Does your rep?

WRONG avail--hate crimes bill is bigoted in that any 'protected class' can not be charged with a hate crime, while the 'unprotected' will be charged with hate crimes regardless of their intent! All crimes are hateful--and just because you're a famous black football player-you shouldn't get a pass.......get it?

Chazman --this is about the THOUGHT POLICE. By adding sentencing enhancement for some crimes, based on the motive or **perceptions*** of the offender, we would move toward a system found commonly in totalitarian regimes, which punish thoughts or beliefs not :sanctioned by the government. In effect, a suspect is convicted not only of the crime but also convicted of the crime of having a particular belief (which may or may not be the case). All crime victims deserve equal protection under the law. Hate crime laws, however, create a multi-tiered system of justice, in which some crime victims’ cases are taken more seriously than others. The hate crimes bill creates a program to dispense federal grants to state and local officials for investigations and prosecution of hate crimes. This incentive places more emphasis on politically driven cases at the expense of others. Prosecuters will subsequently define more cases as “hate crimes.” Expect such crimes to soar.

There is no evidence that hate crime cases are being mishandled by local and state authorities. Proponents have yet to provide data to show that federal intervention is needed to ensure justice.

What’s more, according to the last three annual FBI Crime in the United States Uniform Crime Reports, hate crimes are decreasing, including those based on “sexual orientation". The hate crimes bill undermines equal protection; is a direct threat to freedom; would federalize criminal law, and would transform the nature of criminal law by criminalizing thoughts and beliefs instead of actions.

We have multiple objections to the bill, but our first concern is this: Any senator or representative who votes for such a bill is helping to erect a system in which our children will be jailed someday for their beliefs.

Answer 1

Dead is dead.

If you ask the dead man if it bothers him that his killer hated him, I believe you would find that concern on the bottom of his list.

This is cultural Marxism and it is intended to destroy our western culture, sever our roots so to speak, to divide us so as to open the door to our acceptance of socialism as the new God.

Do not be confused, we are at war, and the enemy is within. If we fail to turn back the socialists in this country our freedom, our liberty is doomed, we will become subjects of a tyrannical government.

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=35370&pollresults=1

I forgot to add, it is not too late to contact your Rep and voice your displeasure. Do it, do it now, quit being the silent majority, speak up on this garbage everyday, bury Congress with your complaints.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.1105&congress=110&size=full

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Motive and intent should always be weighed when determining the evils of crime.
the judge will determine if it is a hate crime or not, and will act accordingly.

Only in an uncivilized justice system, would two men getting into a fight, because of a dispute, be sentenced to the same punishment as someone who beats up a woman, just because she is a woman, or attacks another man, just because of his sexual preference.

There is no legislation of thought here. Once thought is transferred to action, it is no longer a thought, but an action based on a particular motivation.

There are many acts of violence committed out of love, simply for the fact when a person loves and is betrayed they lose their head. this is why it isn't considered premeditated.
Should a person who temporarily loses their sanity out of grief suffer the same consequences as a person who calculates every move and plans every action leading up to the death of another? We haven't thought so, as a society, yet.

Should someone recieve the same punishment for losing their head, when coming home to find their spouse cheating on them, as they would if they perpatrated the same act of violence on someone just because they are jewish, or black, or white?
We haven't thought so, as a society, yet.

So there shouldn't be any reason, that we shouldn't think as a society that greater punishment for a motive that causes the greatest amount of crime, and is based on bigotry, shouldn't be punished much harsher.

Answer 4

There are so many opinions with regards to this issue that it is extraordinarily difficult to find the actual facts. From the cable news to broadcast television there does not appear to be any discussion of salient facts. Newscasters and commentators yell and interrupt one another, at a great race against the clock to be sure to get their opinion out into the blue ether. Are they really giving us the tools to think for ourselves or are they telling us what to think? Do these commentators have an interest in the topic? Does the television station? In the case of this bill, What are the words of the Constitution? How does this bill fit the framework therein? Why does this legislation give immunity to the telecomm companies against lawsuits if what it proposes is legal in the first place? If we the people do the research on our own and stop listening to the media's political analysts i think we'll be better informed!

Answer 5

like avail_skillz said:
name one unprotected class:
described here:
"The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem."

Actually, protecting homosexuals would be only part of the bill's effect; it would also protect heterosexuals, bisexuals, men, women, and the disabled -- in short, all Americans.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat19.htm

Kinda hard for a protected class to perform a hate crime on a protected class that they are part of would it not? Do you think just because they are in one protected class, that they are exempt from hate crime against another protected class?
If that where the case, the bill would do abolutely nothing, because everyone is included in one class or another.
There are no "SPECIAL" groups.

Answer 6

Answer: Requiring law enforcement personnel to become "thought police" to determine whether a crime already addressed by existing law could be prosecuted under an enhanced standard of "hate crime."

The White House already has suggested the proposal is unneeded and a veto would be in order if it is approved. But Ted Kennedy has proposed inserting it into the defense appropriations plan, which Bush wants to pass.

"The maneuver is one clearly calculated to put the president in the position of ending up vetoing a defense appropriation," Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel.

Answer 7

It is my interpretation of the bill that the crime has to be one born from hate and no other reason. Gay men don't do a lot of "straight bashing". Whenever "hate" is involved, it changes the crime. This is actually an addition being added to the current hate crimes bill involving minorities. Are you saying that the over all "Hate Crimes Bill" is wrong, or is this strictly a personal bias against gay americans?

Answer 8

I agree. All crimes are hateful.
I wonder if this is even Constitutional?? What about equal protection?
Person A gets a longer than person B because the victim is deemed "protected"??
Where is the ACLU???

Answer 9

A crime is a crime.

The motive for the crime ought to be considered in the sentencing, but that should be for the judge to determine, and ought to be based on the heinous nature of the motive for the crime. To codify it in statute a priori seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. If members of a "certain protected class" are offered greater protection (through more severe penalties), the members of other classes are, by definition, lesser protected.

Answer 10

So the thought police are at it again. People dont commit crimes against other people out of love. Geez every crime is a hate crime

Ill be for hate crime legislation when someone can point to me a love crime

George Orwell would be a prophet if this s passes