Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, voted against H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Tiahrt’s office released a statement referring to the legislation, which passed the House on a 249-175 vote, as the “Democrat ‘thought’ crimes bill” and suggesting that it would step on free speech, freedom of religion and states’ rights. The congressman said: “Under this legislation, criminals who kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child or a senior citizen. That is not ‘justice for all.’ All victims of a crime deserve full and equal justice under the law, not special treatment that discriminates against particular categories of citizens. . . . Creating a politically favored class of victims that gets greater protection under the law is simply un-American.” Reps. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, and Jerry Moran, R-Hays, joined Tiahrt in the “no” column, with Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, voting “yes.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
131 Comments
Good ol’ Tiahrt, weak on crime and terrorism. Tiahrt has clearly changed his ‘yes’ rubber stamp for a ‘no’ rubber stamp.
Tiahrt’s argument is specious. The law would protect ALL people from hate crimes, no matter what shade one’s skin is
The law “discriminates against particular categories of citizens?”
Is he worried about discriminating against gay bashers and lynchers? Is this who he is representing?
This man’s got to go.
Maybe we could get a bunch of drag queens to beat up Tiahrt, he can’t whine about it being a hate crime, he doesn’t believe in those.
There are already laws that protect ALL people from “hate crimes”. We do not need a new law that unequally protects specific groups. Tiahrt got this one right!
“Maybe we could get a bunch of drag queens to beat up Tiahrt…”
So Maggotpunk are you volunteering?
I am deeply ashamed that our portion of even THIS backwater state can do no better than Toad Tiahrt for a representative. Shame on us.
I am proud of Mr. Tiahrt. In no way is a homosexual any more valuable that my straight child. All murders are hate and should be punished as such. I thought homosexuals wanted fair and not unequal rights. Homosexuals want special treatment just face it. Thanks Mr. Tiahrt for showing you believe we are equal.
Furthermore, we’re focusing on murder here, but there are other kinds of crimes, such as being beaten up, or having one’s property vandalized. Do I think there is a difference between having one’s property vandalized as a random act, and having one’s property vandalized as part of a message that “we don’t like your kind here”, or being beaten up for the same message? Damn right I do. In one set, the motive is stupidity or greed, and while horrible, anyone can potentially be a victim. In the other, the crime is secondary to the message of “we don’t want your kind here”. Those who are arguing about “special privileges”, such as jjj, don’t get it. It is not a “special privilege” to be one of a population more likely to be targeted for a hate crime.
“The LLEHCPA gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”
http://www.hrc.org/12625.htm
“There are already laws that protect ALL people from “hate crimes”. We do not need a new law that unequally protects specific groups. Tiahrt got this one right!”
No Sam, he got it wrong. Very wrong. Not all, or even most, crimes are truly crimes of “hate”. And the bill will not allow just anyone to add a hate crime provision simply because of who the victim is, there has to be evidence that the motive of the crime was to punish the victim for being a member of a particular population.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 – 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, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to: (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and (2) award grants to state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.
Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to expand data collection and reporting requirements under such Act to include: (1) crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and (2) hate crimes committed by and against juveniles.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
The thought police.
Hate crimes laws are the criminal equivalent of hiring quotas. Both allow disparate treatment under the law and therefore should be opposed.
One of the concerns from the article is:
“The ‘thought’ crimes bill also raises the real possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be subject to criminal investigation for expressing their constitutionally-protected beliefs.
Well said outlander.
Besides, I thought special circumstances or heinous pretty much had capitol crimes covered.
…
also, from the summary topic:
criminals who kill a homosexual, transvestite or transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child or a senior citizen.
Sorry, but this proposed law is just stupid in so many laws.
Agnatha..
This law does nothing more than inject “opinion” into why a crime occurred. For example.. there are 2 Homeless people (high risk, but unprotected) sleeping under a bridge. A gang of kids beats them up. WHY did they do it?
a). Because they were poor?
b). Because one was homosexual?
c). Because one had on a Christian T-shirt?
d). Because one had on Nike shoes the kids wanted?
Questions:
Was it a hate crime, and which one was protected?
Answer: Maybe, and neither…. because they BOTH still got beat up. The reason doesn’t matter and the perps should be punished… period!
“Answer: Maybe, and neither…. because they BOTH still got beat up. The reason doesn’t matter and the perps should be punished… period!”
Agreed, Sam, but not every situation is so ambiguous (tha Matthew Shepard case being one in point, despite the disturbing efforts of some right wing extremist to muddy the waters on it). I think the burden of proof would still be on the presecution to prove that the motivation for the crime was to target a specific group of people.
And by the way, if the reason to attack both of those people was to “show everyone that we don’t allow bums in our neighborhood”, I think that amounts to a hate crime.
Acts that could be constituted as hate crimes have been effective in the past in keeping specific groups of people out of neighborhoods, or keeping people from voting, etc. I know for a fact that there were creeps in Aggieville in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s who targeted gays for harrassment and beatings (I spoke with some of the victims). If the specific purpose of the crime was to target a victim of a targeted group, or for that matter if the crime would not have been committed if the victim was not a member of the targeted group, the crime was a hate crime. If the victim was just a victim of a crime that would have been committed anyway, and their race, gender, sexuality, etc. was just incidental, that would be different. And just to be clear, I think the burden of proof should be very high to convict someone of committing a hate crime.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 5, 2009 at 6:38 am | Permalink
Maybe we could get a bunch of drag queens to beat up Tiahrt, he can’t whine about it being a hate crime, he doesn’t believe in those.
Your screen name speaks volumns. A punk among maggots is about as low on the food chain as one can get.
Ah yes, the Matthew Shepard case….
I understand hate crimes against Blacks, because there is a very long history of massive injustice done against them. They have suffered longer than any other group, besides native Americans in the U.S.
The number of Blacks killed versus the number of Gays?
Not even close, not even in the same universe. Making an entire nation answer to a legislative proposal for the acts of a few is just stupid.
This is simply elevation of Gays into the same status as race. That’s all it is, the agenda is clear.
Mind you, murder is not pleasant under any circumstance, but the Gay clause of the ‘hate crime’ statute proposal has zero merit when it is compared to the hundreds of years of hate against Blacks and other minority groups.
Is that all you’ve got, jerryrayw?
And yet you all wonder about hate crimes…
The number of Blacks killed versus the number of Gays?
What about the number of Blacks killed versus the number of “crippled”? Is that how you determine right from wrong? If the numbers are big enough, it doesn’t matter?
Pitiful, Regular.
Tiahrt was right on this one. We don’t need to make more victims in our society. Any violent crime is a hate crime, regardless of who the victim is. Good Job Tiahrt, only if you could be more smart on other issues as well.
If a black homosexual finds out his Mexican transvestite lover has been cheating on him with a bi-sexual transsexual Asian and kills everyone involved, is that a ‘hate crime’?
Just wondering.
HLP
Posted May 5, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink
=========================
Two trans-whatevers cancel out one homo.
#
Predestined
Posted May 5, 2009 at 9:25 am | Permalink
The number of Blacks killed versus the number of Gays?
What about the number of Blacks killed versus the number of “crippled”? Is that how you determine right from wrong? If the numbers are big enough, it doesn’t matter?
Pitiful, Regular.
—————————————-
Elevating Gay murder above children or the killing of a cop is pitiful.
As usual, Jon Stewart nails the hate crimes issue –
http://tinyurl.com/dmjkgl
But, it was a black homo. I think that one of the trans-whatevers cancels out the cancelation.
I hate it when that happens.
If a black homosexual finds out his Mexican transvestite lover has been cheating on him with a bi-sexual transsexual Asian and kills everyone involved, is that a ‘hate crime’?
Just wondering.
================================================
I find it interesting that you wonder about such things.
HLP
Posted May 5, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink
===========================
I am not sure……
I think murder is murder and should be punished as such regardless of race, transwhatever, sexuality, or belief system involved.
You see, it doesn’t matter why you murder someone. It only matters that you did. Trying to figure out why when all you need to know is who is asinine.
Evidence at a crime scene should not be analyzed to determine why someone was murdered. The only thing that matters is that someone died and justice must be brought upon the killer.
The why of it all is just for TV shows like Nancy Grace and her ilk.
Looking at people as groups will be the death of this country. It is the individual who matters.
This is just like regulations on banks and corporations. There are already laws on the books that would take care of Enron, and Madoff, but since we show our incompetence by not enforcing those regulations, we feel the need to create more just so it looks like we are doing something.
HLP,
Now are Asians worth more than Blacks?
I don’t have my ‘Lib Guide to Race Values’ handy.
Evidence at a crime scene should not be analyzed to determine why someone was murdered. The only thing that matters is that someone died and justice must be brought upon the killer.
=================================================
I disagree. Establishing a motive for the murder can help prosecutors in bringing justice upon the killer.
I disagree. Establishing a motive for the murder can help prosecutors in bringing justice upon the killer.
I agree with that.
However, giving weight to a conviction/sentencing just because the victim is Gay, is just stupid.
Two different things Daniel.
Evidence at a crime scene will not establish a motive. All it can do is tell you is who was there and how it happened.
Motive can only be found within the individual who committed the crime. Once found guilty, ask them why, but figuring out why is inconsequential during the trial.
Something to remember here folks. Motive is never enough to find someone guilty. You need evidence that the alleged guilty party was physically involved somehow in the crime.
Motive is irrelevent until you can link someone physically to the crime.
#
Daniel
Posted May 5, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink
I find it interesting that you wonder about such things.
__________________________________________
I find it ludicrous that liberals would pander to queers with hate crime legislation.
ANTI
Posted May 5, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink
…I think murder is murder and should be punished as such regardless of race, transwhatever, sexuality, or belief system involved.”
I agree with that.
“Austrian_Economist
Posted May 5, 2009 at 10:25 am | Permalink
…Motive can only be found within the individual who committed the crime. Once found guilty, ask them why, but figuring out why is inconsequential during the trial.”
Motive can be hard to determine, and is not a factor in guilt, but it is a big factor in the crime a person is guilty of.
As I understand it, motive is the determinant between manslaughter, murder 1, etc…
As I understand it, motive is the determinant between manslaughter, murder 1, etc…
I’m sure our resident attorney can correct me, but I’m pretty sure that malice aforethought is the determining factor to differentiate between manslaughter and murder.
Can ya wade through the hypocrisy here?
Same people who say there should be no such thing as a hate crime are the SAME folks who routinely whine about the poor poor persecuted Christians.
Embarrassing….embarrassing
Agnatha,
It is seperate justice.
Hate is narrowly defined as being opposed to “person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability”
It is specifically giving greater protection to those in the above categories and greater punishment to those who would harm those in the above category.
It has nothing to do with “hate” unless there is something in the law which sop specifically defines it as literally “hating” someone being more wrong.
If I “hate” my neighbor for whatever reason and he is a white Christian male will I be punished more severly under the law because my hate was based on my jealousy of him?
What makes that hate less than the hate of someone merely because they are different?
“Defense” of marriage act anyone?
I need taller boots.
I find it interesting that you wonder about such things.
__________________________________________
I find it ludicrous that liberals would pander to queers with hate crime legislation.
============================================
I agree with you, although I probably wouldn’t put it exactly that way.
My point still stands, though.
What if I “hate” someone because they are rich?
Will the “hate” crime law punish them the same as if I hated someone for being a Jew?
And those wives and husbands who “hate” their spouse for whatever reason? They were cheating on them… they were going to leave them… they were filing for divorce…
I guess that “hate” is not as bad as hate based on race, sex, etc…etc…
Back here in the reality-based community we know how Alabama juries acquitted Ku Klux Klan members of murder during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (and this might be the
liberal“liveral” government going awry for you CONs) and 30 years later, brought the murderers to justice for the federal crime of “Violating the Civil Rights” of the victims.This week a Pennsylvania jury acquitted a gang of thugs and the CONs of this forums cheered because the victim was a foreigner.
There’s a tried-and-truism in Texas that juries consider only one thing when adjudicating a murder trial: Did the victim have it coming?” In many jurisdictions, being gay is considered a mitigating circumstance in personal attacks.
By that standard, I could’ve gotten off if I’d wiped out George WMD Bush for strolling around Crawford, Texas hand-in-hand with the leader of Saudi Arabia. Public display of geyh affection, and all that….
Tiahrt’s vote is emblematic of the CONs’ desperate attempts to categorize gays as something less than human.
Yeah. If someone were to stand outside a Baptist Church and start whacking everyone who left after worship in the head with a baseball bat, I think it might be considered a hate crime. But wait! Discrimination on the basis of “creed” is a hate crime. If you’re gonna go out to bash some f@ggots, perhaps your victims deserve the same protection under the law as the twice-born.
Daniel
Posted May 5, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink
I find it interesting that you wonder about such things.
My point still stands, though.
____________________________________
You never made a point. I made a point using satire. You merely made an observation concerning my point.
I think the burden of proof would still be on the presecution to prove that the motivation for the crime was to target a specific group of people. – Agnatha
—–
I’m not a fan of hate crimes legislation, because of what Agnatha points out. Despite what most people believe and the usual TV whodunit, motive is generally NOT an element of an offense. A prosecutor need not prove WHY a person committed a murder; he need only prove THAT a person committed it. Motive is useful in that respect, and in that respect only, in that in some cases, it is part of the proof THAT a particular person committed a crime. But it is NOT an element of the offense.
Making motive an element of the offense makes the crime more difficult to prove. It forces a prosecutor to prove what is in the mind of a defendant; a difficult proposition at best. At times, it may be easy, at other times hard. Yes, we do that in some cases; premeditation comes to mind. But we prove an intent with physical evidence. Preparation to commit the crime can be used to show premeditation, for example.
Proving “hate” is quite a diffent thing. It may be easy, depending on the particular facts of the case; more often, it is difficult if not impossible to know WHY a person was killed. And as a matter of law, it doesn’t matter why, only that he was killed.
More importantly, as a legal and moral matter, does it matter why a person committed a horrible murder? If a person is tortured and killed, no matter the motive, the victim is no less dead, the defendant no less guilty, and the crime no less fully deserving of punishment. The killer of Matthew Sheppard (since someone raised the case) is deserving of the most severe punishment the law allows – not for what he believed, but for what he DID. It is the ACT that we punish, not the motive.
And thus “hate crimes,” in my opinion, begins to tread uncomfortably close to “thought crimes.”
To be blunt, it’s not illegal to hate. One has a constitutional right to hate.
It’s shallow. It’s morally wrong. I serves no useful purpose. It shows a lack of understanding, of empathy, of openness of mind. It is reprehensible. But it’s not illegal. Elevating some motives as “hate crimes,” as deserving of more severe punishment not because of what a defendant DID but because of what a defendant THINKS, comes dangerously close to punishing thought.
Moreover, we pick out the politically favored classes for protection. If a defendant hated another because he’s gay, there is a hate crime. If he hated another because he listened to country music at all hours (understandably, BTW) that’s not protected. Is there substantive difference between the two? Is one hate less dangerous to society than the other? Is there a reason country music lovers should not also be a protected class (aside from their particular affliction is not politically connected)?
Thus, I have no problem with Tiahrt’s vote. I understand the motives of those who disagree with me, and their motives are entirely honorable. I simply disagree.
Very well said GMC70.
Two different things Daniel.
Evidence at a crime scene will not establish a motive. All it can do is tell you is who was there and how it happened.
Motive can only be found within the individual who committed the crime. Once found guilty, ask them why, but figuring out why is inconsequential during the trial.
===============================================
Establishing apparent motive can most certainly aid in establishing leads in a murder investigation. For example, if the apparent motive is burglary, the police would want to ascertain if any household items are missing and start checking with pawn shops to see if those items start to show up.
My main point is let’s not ignore an investigative tool in an attempt to avoid being politically correct.
Here is the new judicial procedure as I see it because of this law.
Trial 1: Establish guilt of innocence.
If guilty, Determine sentence.
Trial 2: Determine if the crime was hate motivated.
If so, add on additional sentence to previous sentence.
Is this what is going to happen? Can someone describe what a typical additional “harsher” punishment is going to be?
Hate crimes…hmpf. No dice.
Perpetual victims and losers.
Much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Tiahrt on this one. We have enough devisiveness in this country without adding “hate crimes”.
I’m surprised these laws pass constitutional muster. While it may prove one to be a bigot or jerk to use racial ephets, it should still be a freedom of speech issue.
Ten years of hard-buggery.
You never made a point. I made a point using satire. You merely made an observation concerning my point.
=============================================
Touché
A few years ago some racists fashioned a cross from 1-by-2s, soaked it in kerosene, and set fire to it on the lawn of the first black family to move into a neighborhood.
The local magistrate sentenced the perpetrators to a solid year in the county jail… for the misdemeanor of illegal public burning.
By and large, I think that was justice. And no hate crime federal legislation was invoked. Just Kansas common sense.
I’m not sure how a Kansas jury might have ruled but federal hate crimes laws could’ve been prosecuted and the minimum prison term at stake would have been five-to-ten years.
I’m not sure being stupid is a crime worthy of five-to-ten in the federal pen, but the racists spent a year in the pokey and I think it was justice.
As with murdering blacks in Alabama in the 60s, gay-bashing today in many jurisdictions would somehow be accepted by local juries. That’s not justice.
Tiahrt’s vote shows he considers gay-bashing “sport.”
What, specifically is “gay-bashing”?
MonkeyHawk,
If a jury is going to disregard murder because someone was gay what makes you think they will then regard a “hate” crime law instead?
Such absurdity is not based on any type of rational thought.
Where has “gay-bashing” been accepted by local juries? Let alone where a hate crime law would have fixed that?
Good post GMC70
GMC: “It’s shallow. It’s morally wrong. It serves no useful purpose. It shows a lack of understanding, of empathy, of openness of mind. It is reprehensible. But it’s not illegal. Elevating some motives as ‘hate crimes,’ as deserving of more severe punishment not because of what a defendant DID but because of what a defendant THINKS, comes dangerously close to punishing thought.”
Just to be clear, if someone wanted to prosecute, for example, someone as foul as Fred Phelps or even Terry Fox (who I also think is foul) because someone who murdered, say, a gay man claims that he was listening to these unworthies, I would strongly oppose it, and clearly any such attempt at a prosecution would be unconstitutional. However, it is my understanding that HR 1913 would not, by any stretch of the imagination, allow such a thing to happen.
Like I said, I think the burden of proof should and would be high for such a prosecution (and GMC is professionally in a much better position to understand what such a burden of proof would be under the new law, should the Senate pass it and the President sign it). Also, does it really amount to only protecting “certain classes”? If someone an African American criminal’s motivation was clearly to specifically vandalize, rob, sexually assault, or kill people of a different “race”, and that intent was announced in their writings or on an answering machine message or whatever, I think they should also be prosecuted for a hate crime.
GMC: “Thus, I have no problem with Tiahrt’s vote. I understand the motives of those who disagree with me, and their motives are entirely honorable. I simply disagree.”
Appreciated.
And a professional question: The examples here tend towards murder, but when I think of hate crimes I tend to think more mundane things like vandalism and assault (I know several people through the years who have had their property trashed, or have been threatened because of their sexual orientation, their transgender status, their [lack of] religion, or their race). If someone painted “K*ke” and swastikas on a jewish couple’s garage, would a hate crimes prosecution be difficult (and I do see a qualitative difference between that and something like someone going down the street and knocking mailboxes off the post on a street, even though the second thing is certainly an *ssholish thing to do)?
MH –
I agree with you on the burning cross case. I also very much agree that there are laws on the books to deal with those hate issues, and it need not resort to “hate” legislation; common sense applies.
However, your narrative does not lead to your conclusion. Tiahrt’s vote does not show he considers gay-bashing “sport;” it shows no such thing. What it shows is what he said: “Every crime is a hate crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
One who says that every crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law is hardly supporting “gay-bashing.” Nor is there any support for the assertion that this legislation prevents accepting of these acts by juries. NOTHING in hate crimes legislation would prevent jury nullification, which is what that was. I understand that was wrong, and is still wrong. But this law does not fix it, or prevent it; a jury could still ignore this law, just as they ignored those laws.
“Good post GMC70″
Agreed.
Agnatha,
What if it was just a bunch of punk kids who painted those swastikas on a Jewish home?
Does that automatically mean they “hated” them and make them more deserving of harsher punishment than if they had only painted happy faces?
What if it really was a bunch of Nazi’s who did paint those swastikas?
How exactly do you tell them apart from just some idiot kids?
Are you arguing that the mere paining of swastikas is deserving of harsher punishment than smily faces?
Agnatha –
Why not prosecute them for what they did: vandalism and criminal damage to property; perhaps a criminal threat? Do not those statutes fully cover the acts they did? You don’t need a hate crimes law for that. Their motive for doing so, in my opinion, is irrelevent as to the crime itself.
It is entirely relevant as to sentencing, however. THAT is where you go after them. Get out the book and throw it at them. And they deserve every day they spend.
Are you arguing that the mere paining of swastikas is deserving of harsher punishment than smily faces?
Yes, I think she is. Moreover, I agree with her. but we do not need any special “hate crimes” legislation to do so. The normal use of prosecutorial discretion and judicial discretion in sentencing is sufficient. Crimes do not come with fixed ssentences, but a range of sentences, depending on the particular circumstances of the crime. To use your example, criminal damage to property, depending on the extent fo the damagy, is a “B” misdemeanor (up to 6 months), a level nine felony (5 to 17 months, depending on a defendant’s history, or a level seven felony (11 to 34 months, again, depending on a defendant’s criminal history. And depending on that history, a court may choose from a range of sentences for a particular defendant, here, usually 3-5 months longer or shorter. Further, a court may impose jail time as a condition of any presumptive probation sentence, or depart on a presumptive probation case to prison.
Is there any reason a court should not choose the top of the sentencing range for a defendant committing crimes based on racial/religious/sexual identity, etc. hate? Nope. In fact, he should, and as a prosecutor, I’d seek same.
And doing so would be entirely justified, and I don’t need a hate crimes statute to do it.
GMC70,
But my point is that a hate crimes statute would require a harsher punishment for painting swastikas no matter if it were nazis doing it or just a bunch of stupid kids.
I agree with you, the discretion of the court would be able to see the difference between the two acts where a mandatory hate crime sentence would not.
Hmmm…I wonder how that law works for Homosexuals that has murder children.
“Hmmm…I wonder how that law works for Homosexuals that has murder children.”
Probably the same way that it would work for heterosexuals who have murdered children.
having read and reread the above inputs, it is amazing to see the lack of understanding of the gay community outside the stereotypical comments made here. Homophobia, which is the FEAR of gay people not the hatred of gay people, is really behind all this and Tiahart’s veto. It is my guess that many of you know nothing of the gay community outside of the press’s coverage of gay pride parades in which only the bizaar is show. Show like Will and Grace or Queer like Folk do not show the real gay community or the individuals who make up the community. The talk of murders and the like shows a genuine lack of both understanding and intelligence. The gay community wants nothing more then what every other American has and is entitled to by law. The hate crime bill will at least give us the chance for all you also enjoy. But alnoe, it is not enough. The federal law on discrimination needs to be updated to inclide sexual orientation and gender identification. this is the stronger of the two laws. because someone is diffent and you don’t understand is no reason to attack.
pardon spelling errors. passion came before grammar
As long as straight white men are doing the hate crime and not receiving the hate crime, nothing will change.
Let a few Tiahrt-types get lynched because they were white or straight, and the laws would change pretty damn fast.
Straight White Men get murdered all the time Capn’A, they just call it murder though.
I know it is more fun for you people to argue endlessly out of ignornace, but here is the criteria employed by the F.B.I. in determining “hate crimes” – starting on page 4.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime.pdf
Yeah, because there has never been any hate behind the crime from blacks to whites… NEVER happened.
It is only hate when white men do the crime.
Yeah right…
So Steven Davis, we should reporting to the FBI those on this blog for ‘religious bias’?
It’s in that report you linked to.
Religious Bias—A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
who share the same religious beliefs regarding the origin and purpose of the universe and the
existence or nonexistence of a supreme being, e.g., Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists.
GMC argues that existing laws already cover so-called hate crimes and I understand and respect that position, although I don’t agree with it.
IMHO hate crimes are different. The act of dragging a black man behind a pickup truck in Texas by a trio of rednecks is intended to send a message of terror to EVERY black person: “you are a target because of who you are.”
Because they are especially victimized, they need special protection.
Nathan–
Should blacks organize themselves into lynch mobs and attack whites, they too should receive hate crime sentencing.
Not very likely though, is it?
I mean where are the black groups equivalent to the Klan or the White Supremists?
IMHO hate crimes are different. The act of dragging a black man behind a pickup truck in Texas by a trio of rednecks is intended to send a message of terror to EVERY black person: “you are a target because of who you are.”
===============================
Would you feel the same if a group of Blacks drug a White man behind a Cadillac in Detroit?
CapnAmerica
Posted May 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Nathan–
Should blacks organize themselves into lynch mobs and attack whites, they too should receive hate crime sentencing.
=================================
I do recall some riots in L.A., Detroit, NYC, Miami, etc. etc.
I mean where are the black groups equivalent to the Klan or the White Supremists?
====================
Better yet where is the Klan today?
Straight White Men get murdered all the time Capn’A
Correct. But how many get murdered “all the time” because they are straight or white?
That’s the difference. The hate crime says, “you are not safe because of who or what you are. You can be victimized any time we (the majority) want, because you are not worthy of protection.”
#
ANTI
Posted May 5, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
I mean where are the black groups equivalent to the Klan or the White Supremists?
====================
Better yet where is the Klan today?
————————
You talking about Senator KKK Byrd (D) again?
You talking about Senator KKK Byrd (D) again?
=========================================
I think he is too old to climb a tree.
You can be victimized any time we (the majority) want, because you are not worthy of protection.”
======================================
I don’t think the majority is victimizing them. The crimes should be prosecuted as per the crime. No special benefits to gays, Blacks, Whites, Navajoes, or Sherpas.
CapnAmerica,
Not worthy of protection?
Murder is still murder. If you kill a black man because you hate him you are still under an entire group of laws concerning murder.
You act as if there are no laws protecting someone from hate.
Why are you against equality, Capn’A?
Did the Carr bros committed a hate crime? Did they pick those poor folks because they were white? How would you know?
Since this involves the thought police, maybe degrees of hate could be determined. Say we had a stabbing. It is not enough to know that the perp did it, but what was he feeling at the time. Because not everyone feels the same. So we need to be more precise. A true jury question best answered by women and libs I think.
The mildest would be, say, a dislike crime.
Next step could be a detest crime.
Next is the is hate crime.
And then a really hate you crime.
And then a really really hate you crime.
They could go into the person’s childhood and maybe get a psychological profile to consider. And, of course, whether his parents ruined him by making him go church or by withholding TV or video games.
I’ve never really trusted Sherpas.
I’ve never really trusted Sherpas.
============================
They get ya up the mountain and then run off with your bags.
I’ve seen it a thousand times.
ANTI (former Sherpa)
Wow, the ability of straight white men on this blog to endure other peoples’ pain from a comfortable distance is absolutely magnificent.
Now, if only they could be Jews in Hitler’s Germany for one hour or Emmett Till in Mississippi . . .
Wow, the ability of straight white men on this blog to endure other peoples’ pain from a comfortable distance is absolutely magnificent.
=================================
So says a Straight White Man.
“CapnAmerica
Posted May 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
…I mean where are the black groups equivalent to the Klan or the White Supremists?”
You haven’t been in the ‘hood much have you?
CapnAmerica,
What will a hate crime do?
If you murder a black man because you hate him by dragging him behind your truck and torturing him till death….
guess what? You are guilty of murder and would either face life in prison or the death penalty.
What does a hate crime law do to add to that?
Oh my… we are REALLY going to kill you or lock you up for life now… because you hated your victim.
GASP
CapnAmerica
Posted May 5, 2009 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
Wow, the ability of straight white men on this blog to endure other peoples’ pain from a comfortable distance is absolutely magnificent.
========================================
Yeah!
The nerve of those Leftist Libs.
You haven’t been in the ‘hood much have you?
===============
That ain’t no Schitt!
Can rape be a hate crime?
Brian–
Do people from the ‘Hood come to where I live and burn a cross in my yard or pull me from my bed and lynch me because I’m white?
The answer is no.
Can rape be a hate crime?
=========================
Only if the rapist is White.
Lets see… what happened to Lawrence Russell Brewer for dragging a black man to death in Texas?
Oh… he was sentenced to death!
Oh my… and no hate crime legislation on the books.
If only there had of been a harsher sentence than death from a hate crimes bill to punish this guy with.
CapnAmerica,
And if they did, are there no laws on the books to punish them… oh… like murder, aggrivated assualt, vandalism, tresspassing, etc…etc…
BTW, I don’t know what ‘hood your talking about exactly, but I was all over town campaigning for Obama.
The black folk (as a group) treated me a lot better than the whites.
your = you’re
Should blacks organize themselves into lynch mobs and attack whites, they too should receive hate crime sentencing.
_________________________________
It’s my understanding, they are too busy killing each other.
CapnAmerica,
What if you had been campaigning for McCain?
Do you think you would have been treated as well?
LOL
Nathan–
I hear what you’re saying. It’s a shorter, less thought-through version of what GMC already said.
I already replied to GMC upthread. If you didn’t get it then, you won’t get it now.
Try reading before you harass next time.
CapnAmerica,
Harass? LOL
Stop posting such simpleton comments.
You act as if there are no laws now to punish someone for hurting or killing someone they “hate”
Try reading before you harass next time.
Capn has a harass? I didn’t know he was into cave dwelling.
CapnAmerica,
What if you had been campaigning for McCain?
=========================================
I’m guessing Capn’A would have a cap busted in his a&&.
It was argued in court that Brewer and his codefendants engaged in this criminal act, in part, due to their racially separatist affiliation with the Confederate Knights of America and the Ku Klux Klan. Brewer and one codefendant were documented members of the Confederate Knights of America and a large number of Ku Klux Klan and other racial separatist organization paraphernalia was discovered in a residence occupied by the three.
*****
The third vicious racist Shawn Allen Berry was not convicted of the death sentence.
“CapnAmerica
Posted May 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
Brian–
Do people from the ‘Hood come to where I live and burn a cross in my yard or pull me from my bed and lynch me because I’m white?
The answer is no.”
So. What is your point?
You asked “where are the black groups equivalent to the Klan or the White Supremists?”
To which I implied that they are in the ‘hood (no pun intended).
The third vicious racist Shawn Allen Berry was not convicted of the death sentence.
=====================
You should be fine with that.
Libs are against the death penalty, right?
ANTI
Posted May 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
—–
Oops, pi$$ poor reading on my part.
Brian–
Do these groups have national organizations that target whites and Christians for harassment, terrorism and death?
No?
Then it’s not anything equivalent, is it?
Do these groups have national organizations that target whites and Christians for harassment, terrorism and death?
================================
What the Christ?
They have to be a National Organization in order to be a Hate Group?
#
ANTI
Posted May 5, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
Do these groups have national organizations that target whites and Christians for harassment, terrorism and death?
================================
What the Christ?
They have to be a National Organization in order to be a Hate Group?
——————–
Buffon!
Never heard of the Rainbows or the Boy Scouts!
Do these groups have national organizations that target whites and Christians for harassment, terrorism and death?
What was that church Obama used to go to? The one with Rev. Wright (sp?) ?
CapnAmerica,
And do you know why he was only given life instead of death?
Because there was not enough evidence to show he was a racist. Also the evidence on his exact part in the killing was not as solid as the other two who did recieve death.
Hmmm…
So… 2 of the 3 get death and one life in prison.
Once again, how would a hate crime do anything to further their punishment?
You want to kill them twice?
CapnAmerica,
“Do these groups have national organizations that target whites and Christians for harassment, terrorism and death?”
Dont we have laws which target organized crime?
Oh my… yes we do!
GASP
What, exactly, would a hate crime law do that the law already doesn’t?
Nathan–
IMHO hate crimes are different. The act of dragging a black man behind a pickup truck in Texas by a trio of rednecks is intended to send a message of terror to EVERY black person: “you are a target because of who you are.”
Because they are especially victimized, they need special protection.
Do people from the ‘Hood come to where I live and burn a cross in my yard or pull me from my bed and lynch me because I’m white?
===========================
That would be ironic.
I think they would come up with something a little more original than the Klan M.O.
The hate crimes bill sends a message to hate criminals that terrorizing an entire community is not acceptable.
It’s not simply the act of terror itself that is the crime. The fear that it is intended to inculcate in that community is also a crime.
That is why it deserves a special set of laws, IMHO.
And that is all I really have to say about it.
It’s not simply the act of terror itself that is the crime. The fear that it is intended to inculcate in that community is also a crime.
That is why it deserves a special set of laws, IMHO.
======================
Sounds like T.W.A.T.
Remember Capn’A, you are anti-T.W.A.T.
“CapnAmerica
Posted May 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
The hate crimes bill sends a message to hate criminals that terrorizing an entire community is not acceptable.”
Well. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that sooner. That should put a stop to all hate crimes. Because if it is explicitly illegal, I am sure those that would otherwise have committed crimes against groups whom they dislike will think twice.
Yes, sending “a message to hate criminals that terrorizing an entire community is not acceptable” should pretty much stop that sort of behavior.
Well, I could be wrong, Brian.
But not all hate crimes result in a capital crime.
Some of the lower level crimes, like conspiracy, might be more easily pursued.
“Are you arguing that the mere paining of swastikas is deserving of harsher punishment than smily faces?”
If swastikas were painted specifically because the owners of the property were jewish, absolutely.
And by the way, while I respect GMC’s opinion, I do think that outlander’s attempt to classify this as a “thought crime” is over the top. Again, to be classified as a hate crime, there has to be evidence that the victim was targeted because they were the member of a group, probably to the extent that if the victim was not a member of that group, a crime would not have been committed.
There are some who oppose “hate crime legislation” because they think that such legislation muddies the water in criminal cases. To an extent, I do suspect that such laws are symbolic, but I would argue that the symbolism is important, and as long as the burden of proof for charging someone with a hate crime is high, I don’t worry that hate crime charges will become rampant (previous hate crimes laws, to my knowledge, have not resulted in runaway criminal charges for hate crimes). However, I do not think that the (so-called) American Family Association made this such an issue because of concerns about “muddying the waters”. If they were to be honest with what they are thinking (and they sometimes are disturbingly so when communicating in-house) the Christian Right would be honest about their not having any law passed that indicates any sort of acceptance for people being LBGT, they think life should be hard for people who “choose” (HAH!!!!) that “lifestyle”.
I do understand, however, that not everyone who argues against hate crimes legislation has that motivation.
LBGT should not be given special treatment, that’s discrimination.
Democrats refused to define the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” that are to become federally over-protected classes, which would obviously include 30 or more types of vile perversions, because legal definitions would hamper liberal interpretations by leftist, activist, pro-sodomy judges. Indeed, leftist federal judges like Ginsburg have written in favor of legalized pedophilia. Democrats voted down an amendment to exclude pedophilia from protected status. Do they intend eventually to legalize child rape, because of the fact that so many sodomites are attracted to underage boys?
How could 249 members of the U.S. House vote in favor of pedophilia as a protected right, while refusing to allow pregnant women, the elderly, and veterans as protected classes because of being victimized or vulnerable? [The leading cause of death of pregnant women is homicide.]
The number of illegal violent assaults on sodomites in the nation has meanwhile remained quite small, 242 reported in 2007.
Could you give us a list of those “30 or more types of vile perversions”
And perhaps you could give us a link that would prove “Indeed, leftist federal judges like Ginsburg have written in favor of legalized pedophilia.”
I realize that you are a busy man, Newman, with all of your hate activities, but how about something to back up your assertions.
Parkay made a nearly identical post last Friday here:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/05/open-thread-51-2/#comment-564298
It doesn’t seem like his heart is in it. I think he’s just mailing it in at this point.
No surprise here. I have been, and will continue to be, against hate crimes legislation. I would in fact be in favor of removing those existing from the books immediately. I understand youir arguments, it does not persuade me. If we have swift and sure punishment for crimes against persons, it would be enough. It is already already against the law to beat on , or kill someone, do you really think an a#$#@ hole is going to go ….Wait, I’m commiting a hate crime, I better stop beating or killing this person? HAHAHAHAH! Hate crimes legislation is just some way for the legislators at all levels to go HEY LOOK AT ME!! I AM DOING SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PAIN!! THat’s all. Does no good, and offends many by setting up a “a crime against you is a worse than a crime against me” conflict. Le there be swift and sure punishment, regardless of the reason for the crime.
Have these people lost their minds? This is outrageous and we need to stand up to the 545 people in Washington who think they have to protect the perverse, “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association,” instead of children.
It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term ’sexual orientation’ which has been added to the ‘hate crimes’ legislation includes them in the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of various ’sexual orientations.”
The Democratic party was in lockstep as usual to give us freedom to be as vile and filthy as possible with special protections. Who is going to protect the children?
Brian,
“You haven’t been in the ‘hood much have you?”
I lived in “the ‘hood” for 14 years. Nobody burned a cross on my front lawn, or for that matter gave me any trouble period. Of course I wasn’t racist either. Most of the people who live there can spot racists from half a block away, just from the body language. It isn’t that hard.
Daniel,
“Parkay made a nearly identical post last Friday here…”
Please check your spelling. It should read: ” a nearly identical postal…”
TTT,
“Who is going to protect the children?”
From being recruited by the bigots? They have to be carefully taught, you know!
Hate crimes legislation is just some way for the legislators at all levels to go HEY LOOK AT ME!! I AM DOING SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PAIN!! – littlejohn
Yup. It’s about symbolism, and scoring political points. The appearance of action, rather than actual substantive action.
In the real world, it’s largely meaningless as to it’s actual purpose. And worse, it begins the “thought crime” mechanism; the precedent is set that certain thoughts, beliefs, etc. are prosecutable.
That’s a very dangerous road to head down, for marginal substantive benefit.