House votes to add sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes

Bryan · 10-09-2009, 02:20 PM

House votes to add sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

I don't have any problem with the amendment itself. I do have issues with tacking on completely unrelated amendments to larger legislation. If a bill is about defense spending, we shouldn't tack on other things that have nothing to do with defense spending.

slap_j · 10-09-2009, 05:25 PM

Didn't Texas just rule that the gay marriage ban in Texas' constitution was, in fact, unconstitutional?

Things is happenin' in Texas!

Bryan · 10-09-2009, 06:16 PM

a judge allowed a divorce between two men married in another state stating that the gay marriage ban violated the US consitution's equal protection clause.

JerryLove · 10-09-2009, 11:53 PM

I have a general dislike of the entire idea of a "hate crime", as it attempts to enact justice based association rather than act or even intent.

I do also dislike "riders", which most of law seems to be. One requirement when I am king is that all laws must start with a "scope" statement from which no changes may veer.

nolidad · 10-10-2009, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I have a general dislike of the entire idea of a "hate crime", as it attempts to enact justice based association rather than act or even intent.

I do also dislike "riders", which most of law seems to be. One requirement when I am king is that all laws must start with a "scope" statement from which no changes may veer.

Well as long as a hate crime legislation does not impinge on a religions right to speak against practices that it considers evil (and Christianity denounces violence against gays and adulterers etc.), in the hope of seeing one repent.

Well your majesty, while we disagree strongly on many issues, I thouroughly approve of the mechanics of your government.

scarlet.starlet · 10-10-2009, 09:02 PM

I agree with Jerry- a bill should be about one topic and one topic only. And why should a crime motivated by prejudice have its own category? Isn't all violent crime equally immoral?

tlj009 · 10-28-2009, 09:13 AM

Obama just signed this into law. I think that it protects freedom of speech fairly well but this part worries me.

"‘(b) Certification Requirement-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

3
‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section."

The way that I read this, if the Fed's don't like the verdict after a person has been tried in a State court, they can re-try that person. I don't like the fact that a person has to be on trial twice for the same crime. The Feds should either take jurisdiction or leave it for the States but there shouldn't be two trials.

SoapbarII · 10-28-2009, 09:19 AM

I say we vote to give all homosexuals their own island. Let 'em make their own laws or whatever. Then, in about 50-80 years we won't have to deal with these problems anymore because they won't have been reproducing.

/joke (kinda)

slap_j · 10-28-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoapbarII

I say we vote to give all homosexuals their own island. Let 'em make their own laws or whatever. Then, in about 50-80 years we won't have to deal with these problems anymore because they won't have been reproducing.

/joke (kinda)

All homosexuals come from heterosexual unions.

**redbaron** · 10-28-2009, 10:41 AM

The thing that bothers me about hate crime legislation, is that you generally don't assault or murder someone because you really like them as a person.

Does it really matter that you kill someone because they look at you and the voices in your head tell you they need to die, versus seeing them at a pride rally and deciding that they need to pay for their wickedness?

Realistically, they're just as dead, and you're just as wrong. Why should we make the latter a worse crime? Is that life worth more? Aren't all crimes like that bad enough?

tlj009 · 10-28-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

The thing that bothers me about hate crime legislation, is that you generally don't assault or murder someone because you really like them as a person.

Does it really matter that you kill someone because they look at you and the voices in your head tell you they need to die, versus seeing them at a pride rally and deciding that they need to pay for their wickedness?

Realistically, they're just as dead, and you're just as wrong. Why should we make the latter a worse crime? Is that life worth more? Aren't all crimes like that bad enough?

You are right. Hate crimes basically elevate groups of people above the general population. It pretty much flies in the face of equal protection under the law, which is strangely enough the very principle used to strike down the gay marriage ban. Really, the feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the States. Or declare that the States have no rights and take them for their self, which is what I think they would prefer.

bravesfan007 · 10-28-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbaron

Why should we make the latter a worse crime? Is that life worth more? Aren't all crimes like that bad enough?

Exactly. One murder is the same as another murder. Someone did it and someone is left dead.

In all my knowledge if a Caucasian is killed by African-Americans they are not tried as a hate crime when in all actuality it may be a hate crime. At least I have never seen a minority convicted of a hate crime. It's kind of like racism, I believe the river only flows one way and not the other in the minds of most people.

Bryan · 10-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

Exactly. One murder is the same as another murder. Someone did it and someone is left dead.

no, this is not true. Motive is always considered in sentencing. With hate crimes, the motive is the hatred of someone because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Quote:

In all my knowledge if a Caucasian is killed by African-Americans they are not tried as a hate crime when in all actuality it may be a hate crime. At least I have never seen a minority convicted of a hate crime. It's kind of like racism, I believe the river only flows one way and not the other in the minds of most people.

it should be considered the same if a black man kills a white man because of race.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

You are right. Hate crimes basically elevate groups of people above the general population. It pretty much flies in the face of equal protection under the law, which is strangely enough the very principle used to strike down the gay marriage ban. Really, the feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the States. Or declare that the States have no rights and take them for their self, which is what I think they would prefer.

it's not elevating groups of people above the general population. The law should apply in any case regardless of whether the minority is the victim or the aggressor. If a black man kills a white man because he hates white people, that would be a hate crime. If a gay man attacks and kills a straight man because he hates straight people, that should be a hate crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbaron

The thing that bothers me about hate crime legislation, is that you generally don't assault or murder someone because you really like them as a person.

Does it really matter that you kill someone because they look at you and the voices in your head tell you they need to die, versus seeing them at a pride rally and deciding that they need to pay for their wickedness?

yes, it does matter. the former may be because you have some mental illness and need therapy. It is still wrong and they still committed the crime and should still be punished, but the person who kills because they are gay or black should have stiffer penalties.

Quote:

Realistically, they're just as dead, and you're just as wrong. Why should we make the latter a worse crime? Is that life worth more? Aren't all crimes like that bad enough?

it's not who was killed that is the determinate, but the why, it's all about motive.

tlj009 · 10-28-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

it's not elevating groups of people above the general population. The law should apply in any case regardless of whether the minority is the victim or the aggressor. If a black man kills a white man because he hates white people, that would be a hate crime. If a gay man attacks and kills a straight man because he hates straight people, that should be a hate crime.

But that isn't reflected in the current law. And even then, shouldn't it be the State's responsibility. They prosecute nearly every other murder.

bravesfan007 · 10-28-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

no, this is not true. Motive is always considered in sentencing. With hate crimes, the motive is the hatred of someone because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I think what we're all getting at is despite motive being used for sentencing, the result of a murder is the same in the sense that someone is dead regardless of how or why they ended up in that state.