After years of unconscionable delay, the House has approved legislation that would, for the first time, extend federal hate-crimes law to give substantive coverage to gay people. The act would be an important step forward in protecting all minorities from violence and a tribute to a young man whose life was cut short by bigotry. The Matthew Shepard Act, as the bill is known in the Senate, would provide increased funding to state and local authorities to prosecute a wide range of hate crimes — ones motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It would also authorize the federal government to prosecute these crimes when states fail to do so. The biggest beneficiaries would probably be African-Americans, who make up the largest group of hate-crime victims. It would also help Hispanics, who have been increasing targets of anti-immigrant hatred. The bill’s opponents have focused on the protection of gay people, who were the victims in more than 16 percent of the hate crimes reported by the FBI in 2007. In addition to providing more resources, the act would serve an important public education role, underscoring the seriousness and horror of these crimes. After the House’s strong vote — 249 to 175 — in favor of the bill, the Senate needs to follow. — New York Times editorial
The bill targets actions we would all like to eliminate — physically injuring or trying to injure someone with “fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device.” But it’s hard to imagine that it would reduce the prevalence of such conduct, which is already 1) really, really illegal and 2) subject to harsh penalties. This legislation would add extra punishment for attacks designated as hate crimes. But if a criminal is not deterred by the fear of five years behind bars, he’s probably not going to be pushed onto the straight and narrow by the prospect of six. The proposed federal law is mostly a curiosity, since it applies only to hate crimes in which the attacker singles out a victim on the basis of race, religion or national origin and is trying to interfere with the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected activities — going to a public school, applying for a job, serving as a grand juror and so on. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., wants to eliminate these restrictions because they make it hard for the feds to go after hate crimes. But the change might not go down well at the Supreme Court. So a federal hate crimes law may go from being a ban on extremely rare offenses to being unconstitutional. Some achievement. If federal licensing laws required disclosure of the ingredients in congressional legislation, here’s what the label on this one would say: 90 grams of empty symbolism and 10 grams of needless duplication. — Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune columnist
121 Comments
According to a Christian in yesterday’s LTTE, it’s a Christian tradition, and part of the Christian heritage to slaughter people based upon their sexual orientation (and perhaps skin color, ethnic origin and religion). The guy was upset that putting additional penalties would hurt him further in his Christian duty to kill gays.
I never heard such outrage against the extra penalties for killing police officers, so it can’t be some dislike for giving extra time, or the death penalty to murderers. Nope, it’s just fundies who want their heroes to get out of prison earlier for killing gays.
Good comment by Steve Chapman’s essay above: “90 grains of empty symbolism; 10 grams of needless duplication.” Or in less words, its basically pandering.
It’s a shame the law couldn’t have been passed before self-proclaimed Rev. Mark Holick physically attacked a man for being gay.
I think we should add Americans to this list of people that should be protected from hate crimes look at what obamama is doing to Americans.
I wonder if someone harmed a idiot left wing blogger over the stupidity that they posted day after day, would that be considered a hate crime?
“Chrisfrommactown” conspires –
“I wonder if someone harmed a idiot left wing blogger over the stupidity that they posted day after day, would that be considered a hate crime?”
Perhaps.
But you’d have to make the case we “libruhls” are a minority.
Good luck with that.
From the Mathew Shepard case, results:
Russell Arthur Henderson pleaded guilty to felony murder and kidnapping, allowing him to avoid the death penalty. Aaron James McKinney was convicted of felony murder and kidnapping. Henderson is currently serving two consecutive life sentences and McKinney is serving the same but without the possibility of parole.
In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard’s murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay — contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.
Exactly how much more punishment would the Hate Crime bill add for these thugs? Also, they didn’t even get the motivation for the crime right, it was about drugs and money, not hate of someone who was gay. Shepard was a troubled individual and included in the trial as an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard’s sexual orientation.
—
CONS:
1. The bill includes the terms “Religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
What constitutes a religion?
3. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
4. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”
5. “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
This bill would create two new federal offenses, nearly identical to those in S. 909, and greatly expand the scope of federal government power over violent, noneconomic crimes that are truly local in nature. It would impose federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law – on anyone who “willfully” injures or attempts to injure another “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” Although the bill purports to address “hate crimes,” its two new offenses do not require a federal prosecutor to offer any evidence, much less prove, that the defendant was in fact motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred. Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or “includes kidnapping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”
The missing #2 from my previous post:
2. Creates
- Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment
- Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent
To Commit a Crime.
- Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.
- This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits
an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added). This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naive in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they
physically contributed to the act.
- Federal Power Grab
- Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of
Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity. The
recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups. Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.
- Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/analysis-of-2009-hate-crimes-bill-hr-1913.html
“Regular” –
You really don’t want to go on record defending Matthew Shepard’s murderers, do you?
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:05 am | Permalink
“Regular” –
You really don’t want to go on record defending Matthew Shepard’s murderers, do you?
===============================
I’ll go on record for action against anyone inflicting grievous bodily harm or murdering someone.
Besides, your misinterpretation of what I wrote further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty MonkeyHock.
No one likes you, no one trusts you and no one wants you around, boy.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 18, 2009 at 6:11 am | Permalink
According to a Christian in yesterday’s LTTE, it’s a Christian tradition, and part of the Christian heritage to slaughter people based upon their sexual orientation (and perhaps skin color, ethnic origin and religion). The guy was upset that putting additional penalties would hurt him further in his Christian duty to kill gays.
——————-
I wondered why the Eagle would allow such a letter. So I checked it out. The answer, of course, is that they didn’t. Maggie completely misrepresented… OK he lied. Below is the actual letter. Not the best written letter and the concluding paragraph obviously applies to free speech concerns. See if it matches Maggie’s description.
“I want to thank Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, for standing up for religious freedom and justice by voting against the hate crimes bill (”Why Tiahrt voted ‘no’ on hate crimes bill,” May 5 WE Blog excerpts).
The erroneously named bill would provide prosecutors the ability to attack religious leaders for exercising their First Amendment rights. The bill also would create more severe penalties for people convicted of murdering homosexuals than those convicted of murdering police officers and children.
The hate crimes bill is just another step by President Obama and his American Civil Liberties Union buddies to strip this country of our cultural and religious heritage.”
“strip this country of our cultural and religious heritage.”
About time!
If you justify one murder,assault, beating, rape or any crime of violence as being worse than another, that itself is hate against the one you are judging as less hateful.
I would think that since religion and christianity numbers are decreasing (which the libs praise), that this law should include PRO-LIFE and christians in specifically worded legislation.
Or is that well understood just like race means Black Americans and sexual orientation means queers?
#
American_Way
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:57 am | Permalink
I would think that since religion and christianity numbers are decreasing (which the libs praise), that this law should include PRO-LIFE and christians in specifically worded legislation.
Or is that well understood just like race means Black Americans and sexual orientation means queers?
===============================================
Are you under the impression that Christians wouldn’t be protected under this law?
Daniel I’m not sure. Apparently there is an effort in government to get rid of religion. It’s all the rage in the dominating political party. Making fun of Christians (persecution) has become great fun in America.
This may be a law of unintented consequences..
#
Mr_Kia
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:27 am | Permalink
If you justify one murder,assault, beating, rape or any crime of violence as being worse than another, that itself is hate against the one you are judging as less hateful.
============================================
How would this proposed law justify murder, assault, beating, rape or any crime of violence?
Mr Kia good post.
American_Way,
I hadn’t heard about this government-led effort to get rid of religion. Is it just Christianity or all other religions, too?
As far as individuals making fun of Christianity, that is certainly their right if the choose to do so. Christianity, like any other belief or philosophy, has to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I hope that don’t actually equate ‘making fun of Christians’ with ‘persecution.’ Pulling the victim card like that just makes Christianity and Christians appear to be weak and whiny and we both know better than that.
Back in the day, they made fun of blacks by tar and feathering them. Dragging them behind horses with rope was optional.
This may be a throw back to ancient Rome and the likes of the Roman Colosseum. Gladiators, christians, and other innocents were killed in violent and gruesome ways to include animal attacks.
This was great fun. Some even called it sport.
American_Way,
So you are equating ‘making fun of’ with tarring and feathering and dragging people behind horses with ropes?
You are flailing around even more than usual this morning. You better have another cup of coffee.
Already discussed this; my opinion has not changed. I’ll not go into it in detail again. Suffice it to say the bill is mostly, if not entirely, symbolism, not substance. Sometimes symbolism is important, of course, but I’m far from convinced this is one of those times, for reasons got into some 2 weeks ago.
Moreover, the bill comes dangerously close to punishing not acts, but thoughts; a precipice we do not want to step over, or even approach.
There are many persons of good will who disagree with me, however.
With that, I’m done here; I need not beat this horse again.
Daniel
Posted May 18, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
How would this proposed law justify murder, assault, beating, rape or any crime of violence?
—————————————————-
Crimes of violence are acts of hate.
Possibly justify is not the right word to use, but to brand a crime of violence more hateful than another is wrong in my opinion.
Maybe I do need another cup of coffee. I didn’t get my thoughts conveyed clearly on this one.
It just seems to me this is a convenient politically motivated new law which is popular, but already covered elsewhere in the law. And if they can focus the law on those politicians feel are “important” to the Feds, then they can persecute anyone they want – who doesn’t conform.
On the other hand, they can REFUSE to focus on hate crimes of their selection.
That could be Christians.
What’s next, THINK CRIMES?
#
JimJohnson
Posted May 18, 2009 at 10:37 am | Permalink
What’s next, THINK CRIMES?
================================================
Don’t worry, Jimbo. No DA’s office would ever attempt to bring you up on charges of THINKING.
The Thought Police will watch your every move (we have cameras everywhere already!) and catch you if you even THINK an illegal thought or THINK about something which opposes the current administration.
Thou Shalt Not Criticize The ONE!
And if you are HATING anything, you will be arrested and shot to death.
If one spouse in a bi-racial couple kills the other spouse, is that a hate crime?
If one spouse in a gay couple kills the other spouse, is that a hate crime?
If a dog kills a cat, is that a hate crime?
If Clark threatens someone on this blog, is that a Hate crime?
If Chas calls another blogger nuckin futs, is that a hate crime?
If Chas tells another blogger to STFU, is that a hate crime?
What is hateful about
See
The
Funny
Unicorn
?
JimJohnson
Posted May 18, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink
If Clark threatens someone on this blog, is that a Hate crime?
===========================
Clark threatened to burn my house down with me in it…I dunno, does that count?
I dunno.
The law has long considered mitigating circumstances. It doesn’t seem all that outrageous to consider instigating circumstances.
Setting some wood on fire on somebody’s lawn most certainly is some kind of crime.
Shaping that wood into the shape of a cross on the lawn of the first African-American family in the neighborhood and setting fire to it… probably has some relevance, don’tcha think?
Shaping that wood into the shape of a cross on the lawn of the first African-American family in the neighborhood and setting fire to it… probably has some relevance, don’tcha think?
=========================================
Clark didn’t specify the fuel or shape that it would be in, just that he was going to set it/me a flame.
I sorta thought when they hung an effigy of Bush and Palin in LA that was a hate crime.
But that was during another time.
Is it a hate crime to forcefully remove the cross and ten commandments from Government buildings?
“JimJohnson” –
So I assume you’ll support my effort to put a giant statue of the Buddha in my county courthouse?
Send money.
We need more gold leaf!
Buddha was a fatty and contributed to AGW.
How dare you Monkeyhawk, how dare you?
How much gold leaf you talking about?
Was Buddha well endowed?
If I burned an effigy of Obama, would that be a hate crime?
In the past as were shown within the civil rights struggle of Blacks, often crimes that were committed because of race alone. In an area where the local authority either did not see it as a crime or were in face a part of that crime. The Federal Government had only one way of investigating and prosecuting these crimes that normally were a local matter.
It was to investigate and prosecuting under it being a violation of Civil rights. But this also meant that the crime itself had to be a major crime and this limit out such crimes as simple assault and or battery and property crimes.
Thou they two would have been done with the same intent as murder, rape and assault and or battery with a weapon. A federal law that given the jurisdiction of the Government to investigation and prosecute crimes where the intent was not solely that of the crime. Will allow a broadening of their power to act.
While in High School I would over hear groups planning and recruiting for a trip that evening to a local Gay bar to assault anyone coming out of the bar. There was no secret made of who the targets would be no more then the Klan made of who their targets would be.
“Is it a hate crime to forcefully remove the cross and ten commandments from Government buildings?”
Uhhh no. Because they should not have been there to start with. Religious symbols have NO place on or inside a government building unless they are items of a personal nature that belong to an employee and are located in an area exclusive to that employee (such as a crucifix on an employee’s desk). We don’t live in a theocracy- at least not yet- as hard as the Republicans have tried to make it into one.
If a movie about the current sitting POTUS being 86′d, would that be a hate crime?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/
Now picture the outrage if that film was about the current POTUS, and not GWB.
Writerdog, I read all the way through your post.
It was trying – getting beyond the typing problems.
Was there a point in there somewhere?
Still no CON has contributed to my Gold Leaf for the Buddha Statue in the County Courthouse fund.
I’m stunned.
“American_Way” asks –
“How much gold leaf you talking about?”
Quite a bit. Send all the money you can.
“Was Buddha well endowed?”
Interesting your mind goes there.
But, yeah, he was pretty fat. So we need all the gold leaf you can provide. How much money can I expect from you?
American_Way
Posted May 18, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink
Writerdog, I read all the way through your post.
—————————–
Your kidding?
I tried reading it sdrawkcab and it still made no sense.
Amway,
“Making fun of Christians (persecution) has become great fun in America.”
Oh you poor persecuted christians! You’re being made fun of! How awful! At least we haven’t yet brought out the tools your various inquisitions used on us non-christians. Would burning a few of you at the stake be considered a hate crime or justifiable (if a bit late) retribution?
“Thou they two”
What is that? Hebrew?
Jed is a witch.
Maybe a Dog IS actually doing the writing.
Monkeyhawk, it wasn’t my mind going there in the way you are thinking.
I was thinking of all those statues of greek gods with fig leafs….The movie angels and demons was still fresh on my mind.
But since you said Buddha was really fat, then his belly probably obstructs the view so no gold would be needed for that area.
I wish you well on your quest. Gold is selling well right now due to the Obama economy. It might be as hard as ammunition to come by.
By golly I think Jed just proposed a hate crime.
Where was this law when Salem needed it?
Ant,
“Buddha was a fatty and contributed to AGW.”
If you had looked it up, you’d know that the Gautama Buddha’s fat is strictly symbolic. Nobody knows what he actually looked like any more than they know what Jesus did.
#
ANTI
Posted May 18, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink
Jed is a witch.
==========================
Apparently…
How did he survive the dunking?
Jesus looked like Perry Mason, but without the wheelchair. And he had long stringy hair. And there was a glow about him. Mostly around his head.
I picture my Jesus as the nativity Jesus.
Little 6 lb. 8 oz. baby Jesus.
American_Way
Posted May 18, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Daniel I’m not sure. Apparently there is an effort in government to get rid of religion. It’s all the rage in the dominating political party. Making fun of Christians (persecution) has become great fun in America.
This may be a law of unintented consequences..
–
Do all Christians like to play the victim card? For being such persecuted people, I notice you all get to say what you want and at anytime you want – so where is the persecution?
And the making fun of Christians is only done when one of your beloved Christian leaders or Christian Republicans get caught with their pants down (literally) or with their hands out for the bribe money.
Why don’t you go after your fellow Christians who cannot seem to keep their good morals intact?
There is no effort in government to get rid of religion – that’s a publicity stunt to play the victim and made a few talk show entertainers wealthy.
The US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion – it does not guarantee the freedom of ONE religion.
For a long time people thought Jesus was white.
But then he was black and from Africa.
More recently, there has been discussion that
Jesus is a mulatto from Kenya. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
“Little 6 lb. 8 oz. baby Jesus.”
Anti that is sick. See the Jeffrey Dalmer posts.
“Jed” –
May God smite you down and damn your mortal soul.
Everyone knows Jesus had blue eyes and was a dead-ringer (well, un-dead after three days*) for Max von Sydow.
(* OMG! Christianity is zombie-worship!!)
Anti that is sick.
==========================
You must not be familiar with ‘Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby’.
But seriously, I would venture to say Jesus looked like an Arab Jew.
Ant,
“Jed is a witch.”
Nope, but I do have Wiccan friends and relatives, so watch what you say about them or I’ll tell them to cast a spell to make all the gender-specific parts of your anatomy wither and fall off.
Nope, but I do have Wiccan friends and relatives, so watch what you say about them or I’ll tell them to cast a spell to make all the gender-specific parts of your anatomy wither and fall off.
=========================================
Sorry Jed,
My witches are stronger than your witches.
American_Way
Posted May 18, 2009 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Jesus looked like Perry Mason, but without the wheelchair. And he had long stringy hair. And there was a glow about him. Mostly around his head
–
Wasn’t Jesus also dark-skinned? He was also poor, ministered to the outcasts of society and preached love and compassion.
These are things I don’t think of when I see the Republican Party or today’s mega churches.
It’s a good thing that all of you own your own businesses.
Otherwise, there’d be a lot of screwing off going on.
I think Christ’s looks are debatable I suppose but also irrelevant to me. I always laugh at the blonde haired blue eyed likenesses however. He most likely looked like the rest of his region and it can be left there.
I think you should get involved with any church including a Mega Church toto if that’s your belief.
“He was also poor, ministered to the outcasts of society and preached love and compassion. ”
And you believe your democrats in Congress and the white house meet this criteria?
You would be better off believing in the witch posts above.
” blue eyed ”
Jesus did NOT have blue eyes.
Just go watch the old movie, Jesus Christ Superstar!
“I picture my Jesus as the nativity Jesus.
Little 6 lb. 8 oz. baby Jesus.”
“For a long time people thought Jesus was white.
But then he was black and from Africa.
“More recently, there has been discussion that
Jesus is a mulatto from Kenya. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
“Jesus looked like Perry Mason, but without the wheelchair. And he had long stringy hair. And there was a glow about him. Mostly around his head.” (by the way, Perry Mason was never in a wheelchair; that was Ironside!)
“Everyone knows Jesus had blue eyes and was a dead-ringer (well, un-dead after three days*) for Max von Sydow.”
“But seriously, I would venture to say Jesus looked like an Arab Jew.”
Jeez! Looking like all of that, it’s no wonder he’s seen as self-contradictory. Actually he’s not; you see each christian faction has it’s own personal Jesus Clone to fight all those other Jesuses belonging to all the other factions, as well as the Jesus of the Muslims and the Jesus of the Jews. Tonight’s Thunderdome Main Event- The Battle of the Jesuses!
Ant,
“My witches are stronger than your witches.”
Look down.
Amway,
“Where was this law when Salem needed it?”
Check your history book. Nobody got burnt at the stake in the Salem witch-hunt; they were all hanged.
darn it Jed! They burned witches, didn’t they? Now I hate that! Oops. Did I just commit a crime?
I once visited the Church of the Navel. We thought Adam and Eve had belly buttons.
But then we didn’t.
Amway,
Of course they burned witches, or rather those they supposed were witches, and did all manner of extremely horrid things to them beforehand; just not in Salem (firewood crisis, y’know).
And self-hatred is not a crime yet, although it probably should be considered as soon as we get this economy fixed.
Amway,
I once met a woman from The Church of The Risen Elvis, who sincerely believed that “The King” really was the king. About a #6.5 on the Spookymeter.
Elvis blogs here occassionally.
Democrats scared him off.
Isn’t it interesting that of all the people screaming on this thread about THOUGHT POLICE! THOUGHT POLICE!, not one of them has seen fit to mention the fact that Kansas *already* has a hate-crimes law? And that said hate-crimes law, passed in 1993, already includes “sexual orientation?” And yet here you all are, free to spew your bile and venom, and no one has been arrested for it.
I’m most surprised that GMC doesn’t know this. After all, it’s his job to prosecute bad guys. Isn’t it?
And as a parting thought: Perhaps no one has been arrested for “thought crimes” because the majority of the haters don’t think?
The A in the forehead for adulterers too.
Say, didn’t someone mention branding for those who get free Government abortions?
Am,
“Democrats scared him off.”
Good! Never did much like Elvis the Pelvis!
Jimbo,
“Say, didn’t someone mention branding for those who get free Government abortions?”
Wouldn’t worry too much; there’s a 14mo. waiting list for those “free Government abortions.” Most people don’t get around to signing up in time.
Hey Tom,
Good post! Good post!
“Say, didn’t someone mention branding for those who get free Government abortions?”
Branding single women who apply for welfare/ADC. No help with second illegit child.
Branding the deadbeat dads (or moms) after they produce a baby out of wedlock and refuse to pay for it. The guy would get an erect pen*s tatooed on his forehead so other woman would know him.
Amway,
“Branding the deadbeat dads (or moms) after they produce a baby out of wedlock and refuse to pay for it. The guy would get an erect pen*s tatooed on his forehead so other woman would know him.”
No, brand ‘em where it might actually do some good!
That might be more effective Jed. It might work better on the women instead of tatooing the word
W HORE on their foreheads too.
thomaswitt
Posted May 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
Isn’t it interesting that of all the people screaming on this thread about THOUGHT POLICE! THOUGHT POLICE!, not one of them has seen fit to mention the fact that Kansas *already* has a hate-crimes law? And that said hate-crimes law, passed in 1993, already includes “sexual orientation?” And yet here you all are, free to spew your bile and venom, and no one has been arrested for it.
================================
Oh?
What Kansas statute would that be?
Amway,
Whatever you do, don’t tattoo that on their foreheads! It’ll attract all the potential deadbeat dads and we’ll have another baby boom on our hands!
Tom,
“What Kansas statute would that be?”
Whatever you do, don’t tell him!
#
Jed
Posted May 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“What Kansas statute would that be?”
Whatever you do, don’t tell him!
==================================
He can’t tell me about something that doesn’t exist.
Reggie,
Right, it doesn’t exist!
#
Jed
Posted May 18, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
Reggie,
Right, it doesn’t exist!
—————————
Sentencing guidelines are not statute specific and there is no Kansas Hate crime statute.
What a pity, my previous response to “Regular” is “awaiting moderation.” I’m sure the editors will never let it see the light of day. Pity.
The statute is KSA 21-4716. It’s a STATUTE, passed by both houses of the Legislature, signed by the Governor, and is the law in Kansas, no matter how “Regular” wants to try to spin what does and doesn’t constitute a “statute.”
This would appear to be the statute in question:
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_47/21-4716.html
Yuliya Galperina, 42, was found murdered Sunday in her Salem, MA apartment, along with her unborn baby of 9 months gestation. Her 3-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son are in state custody. Her boyfriend Peter Ronchi is charged with murder.
The leading cause of death of pregnant mothers is homicide, although Democrats in Congress refuse to afford them the same equal protection from violent assault as sodomites in their thought crimes bill. Very few sodomites nationwide are violently assaulted or murdered, but their advertising campaign hypes them as victims. Sodomites are far more likely to be victims of their own domestic violence, queer on queer.
As I mentioned previously,
21-4716
Chapter 21.–CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART III.–CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES AND SENTENCING
Article 47.–SENTENCING GUIDELINES
(C) The offense was motivated entirely or in part by the race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation of the victim or the offense was motivated by the defendant’s belief or perception, entirely or in part, of the race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation of the victim whether or not the defendant’s belief or perception was correct.
This is a sentencing guideline, not a Hate Crimes Statute.
That’s exactly what a hate-crimes statute is, you bloody moron. Good. Effing. Grief.
As usual the NYT has it all wrong. If they had read the investigation of the Matthew Shepard case they would not put out such nonsense. The guys who beat him to death had no idea about his personal life. They were both drunk, high and were robbing him.
Even the cops new what was going on.
Hey Parkay,
Two years ago, when the Kansas Legislature passed the so-called “Alexa’s Law,” they used that bill to repeal two OTHER laws making it a crime to harm a pregnant woman.
So much for the compassion of the supposed “right.”
Mrbill,
The thugs who murdered Shepard did indeed rob him. But they beat him, tied him upside down to a barbed-wire fence, and abandoned him in freezing cold to die because he was gay.
reggie,
“Sentencing guidelines are not statute specific and there is no Kansas Hate crime statute.”
Looks like it’ll do in a pinch.
That’s exactly what a hate-crimes statute is, you bloody moron. - Thomaswitt
—–
No, it’s not, nitwitt. A sentencing statute is just that; a sentencing statute. May ehtnic/religious/ etc. hate be used as a sentencing factor? Absolutely, and entirely appropriately.
Is it an element of an offense? No. And that’s a crucial difference.
(chortles)
thomaswitt
Posted May 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink
Mrbill,
The thugs who murdered Shepard did indeed rob him. But they beat him, tied him upside down to a barbed-wire fence, and abandoned him in freezing cold to die because he was gay.
=========================================
In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard’s murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay — contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.
Exactly how much more punishment would the Hate Crime bill add for these thugs? Also, they didn’t even get the motivation for the crime right, it was about drugs and money, not hate of someone who was gay. Shepard was a troubled individual and included in the trial as an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard’s sexual orientation.
I bet that the real reason reggie is so afraid of hate crimes legislation is that it deprives him of all his favorite fantasies.
Wow, GMC, I haven’t been called a “nitwitt” since I was 12 or 13, and then it was by another 12 or 13 year old. How creative of you to come up with that.
Tell me, GMC and Regular, why is it that most of the states that have implemented hate crimes legislation do it through enhanced penalties (or “aggravating factors”) to underlying crimes? Neighboring states such as Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas all use this method (there’s more, but it would be tedious to list them).
Or is it that you think a hate crimes statute has to say the two words “HATE” and “CRIME” in it to meet your definition of a hate crime statute?
Or perhaps one of you would care to explain that one of the State Representatives on the 1993 Judiciary Committee who wrote the statute? Rep. Jan Pauls of Hutchinson, who was one of the main sponsors of the 2005 marriage ban, and I chatted about this statute earlier this year. *She* clearly thinks it’s a hate crime statute, and she helped write it!
Does anyone care to explain this obvious one: If it’s a numbered statute in the Kansas Statutes (Annotated) book, how is it not a statute? When you come up with that explanation, someone better real fast let the Kansas Legislature know, because they’ll certainly be surprised to find out that all those statutes they’ve been passing for the past 150 years aren’t really, you know, *statutes.*
Good. Effing. Grief.
As was pointed out to you Thomas Witt, a sentencing guideline is just that – for consideration of sentencing.
Some of the things a separate statute could do that a sentencing statute does not:
-Could provide financial grants to local entities
-Could provide additional investigative and prosecutor personnel (State Attorney General, KBI)
-Could create new criminal offenses
-Could create new evidentiary rules
–No evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime.
These of course are just suggested methods for pre-trial preparation and evidence handling.
One cannot do any of these things in sentencing guidelines.
“Regular,” so you’re saying Kansas’ hate crime statute is weak? Okay. I agree. But that wasn’t the point of my original comment, and your assertion that there is no such statute has been proven to be as full of **** as most of us who post here have long known you to be.
I have yet another comment “awaiting moderation,” apparently because of the links in it.
Instead of tabloid “reporting” from 20/20, I’d rather go by those pesky things called “facts.” Here’s some quotes and reports from contemporaneous articles covering the trials of Henderson and McKinney:
“Escaping a possible death penalty, Russell A. Henderson was sentenced by District Judge Jeffrey A. Donnell for his part in the beating, robbery and murder of the student, Matthew Shepard, here six months ago. Police said Mr. Henderson and another man had pretended to be gay to lure Mr. Shepard to his death. ”You are deserving the fullest punishment this court can mete out,” Judge Donnell said, accepting a plea agreement two days before opening arguments were to begin. In his only reference to Mr. Shepard’s sexual orientation, the judge said the killing was ”part because of his life style, part for a $20 robbery.”
(from the April 6, 1999, New York Times)
Albany County District Court Judge Barton Voigt said a defense based on the argument that McKinney acted out of fear generated by an alleged sexual advance by the victim, Matthew Shepard, is not supported by Wyoming law.
But the defense contends that McKinney acted in a drug-fueled rage after Shepard made a sexual advance at him — a rage that defense attorney Jason Tangeman also said was fueled by McKinney’s “sexually traumatic and confused history,” including being molested at age 7.
(from October 27, 1999, CNN)
#
thomaswitt
Posted May 19, 2009 at 8:55 am | Permalink
“Regular,” so you’re saying Kansas’ hate crime statute is weak? Okay. I agree. But that wasn’t the point of my original comment, and your assertion that there is no such statute has been proven to be as full of **** as most of us who post here have long known you to be.
=================================
Awww Mr. Witt, I try to be civil and present a reasoned discussion and what do I get in return?
Sentencing guidelines are just that – for purposes of sentencing.
You must be terrible at debates. Does your face turn red and you start stuttering? :)
Thomas Witt tries again:
Instead of tabloid “reporting” from 20/20, I’d rather go by those pesky things called “facts.”
But the defense contends that McKinney acted in a drug-fueled rage after Shepard made a sexual advance at him — a rage that defense attorney Jason Tangeman also said was fueled by McKinney’s “sexually traumatic and confused history,” including being molested at age 7.
(from October 27, 1999, CNN)
============================
You quote the Communist News Network as a trier of facts?
LOL!
“Regular,”
1. If you can find contemporaneous sources that disputes CNN’s report, feel free to post them here. Find something that says CNN lied about the police statements, and about the statements made in open court by Henderson’s attorney. Go ahead.
1b. The same applies to the NYTimes report. Find something published in 1999 that says the Times lied about Judge Donnell’s sentencing statement. Post it.
2. It’s actually an AP report, run on CNN’s website. If you’d bothered to google the article before spouting off, you would have seen that.
Edit to item 1 above: I meant to say McKinney’s attorney, not Henderson’s.
I Hate this thread.
From Elizabeth Vargas, 20/20 while being interviewed on Fox News:
VARGAS: Even the prosecutor says there was more to the murder. The prosecutor who prosecuted these crimes says that he never believed it was a hate crime. He believes it was a drug crime. Aaron McKinney, according to Aaron McKinney himself and to several other witnesses, was coming down from a five-day methamphetamine binge. He freely admits he not only used methamphetamine but dealt them, sold them. Five days up with no sleep, strung out on drugs, desperate to buy more, desperate to rob somebody to get money to buy more drugs. This was the motive, according to Aaron McKinney and the other witnesses.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll help “Regular” out here by pointing out that the Vargas interview was on Bill O’Reilly’s show in 2004, and that what she was doing was defending her poorly done 20/20 report.
I’m still waiting for the contemporaneous reports calling CNN, AP, and the NY Times liars. Otherwise, it was the judge in Henderson’s case who was lying, and it was McKinney’s own attorney who was lying. So QUICK! someone call the Wyoming Bar Association! Because there’s a judge and a lawyer who need sanctions, or even disbarment!
ANTI
Posted May 19, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink
I Hate this thread.
—————————–
Watch out! That might be a crime!
American_Way
Posted May 18, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
“Say, didn’t someone mention branding for those who get free Government abortions?”
Branding single women who apply for welfare/ADC. No help with second illegit child.
Branding the deadbeat dads (or moms) after they produce a baby out of wedlock and refuse to pay for it. The guy would get an erect pen*s tatooed on his forehead so other woman would know him.
==================================
AmWay posts as if he is a re-incarnation of a Nazi guard at Auschwitz… Those demons love tattoos… Naziism is alove and well on the WE Blog!!! And a guy who uses the “nic” AmericanWay is one of the leaders!! Do you like starch in your collars, AmWay?? Lots of starch like the Nazi guards??
#
thomaswitt
Posted May 19, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll help “Regular” out here by pointing out that the Vargas interview was on Bill O’Reilly’s show in 2004, and that what she was doing was defending her poorly done 20/20 report.
I’m still waiting for the contemporaneous reports calling CNN, AP, and the NY Times liars. Otherwise, it was the judge in Henderson’s case who was lying, and it was McKinney’s own attorney who was lying. So QUICK! someone call the Wyoming Bar Association! Because there’s a judge and a lawyer who need sanctions, or even disbarment!
===============================
Show me a link to the trial transcript.
If the prosecutor said in an interview there was no hate crime, I have to believe that. Here is this case, the Judge, the trier of fact, decided to use sentencing guidelines or did he? The terms of both men convicted indicated neither would ever get out on parole.
How many life sentences would make you feel good Mr. Witt?
Or, are you willing to waive the Lib mantra of “no death penalty” and have had the men executed?
Where are your excerpts from court documents and transcripts?
Or, are you going to rely on news reports solely to make a determination for a new Hate Crime Bill?
Myself, I would prefer that facts in evidence be used to make a determination, not what TV news reports.
Ant,
“I Hate this thread.”
Threadbigot!