Hate Crimes

[seer]

Hatch joins Kennedy to push hate-crimes bill


By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



A new "hate-crimes" proposal supported by Democrats and key Senate Republicans, including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, would vastly expand the federal government's power to prosecute such crimes committed anywhere in the country.
Opponents of one of the most contentious provisions — the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a protected category — "have got to grow up," Mr. Hatch said earlier in the negotiations.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the past but always has been defeated, usually through parliamentary procedures or in conference committees after passing the Senate. In recent years, the bill has been stopped by Mr. Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which handles such legislation.
A significant difference with the current proposal is that Mr. Hatch now has joined Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, to support the legislation. Also, Mr. Hatch was able to make significant changes to the proposal, supporters said.
Mr. Hatch and Mr. Kennedy actively are looking for ways to get the bill approved by the Senate before the end of the current session.
If the bill were to face a vote on the floor by the full Senate, it would likely pass with support from at least eight Republicans, including Mr. Hatch and Sen. Gordon H. Smith of Oregon.
"The senator is delighted that he, Senator Hatch and Senator Smith have found common ground," said David Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kennedy. "It's an issue of basic decency and fundamental rights."
Opposition remains strong among some Republicans, though several of those who have been the staunchest opponents in the past declined to speak on the record about the measure drawn up by Mr. Hatch and Mr. Kennedy.
They are concerned that the bill would violate free-speech rights and give the Department of Justice free rein to step over local authorities to prosecute many types of violent crimes. Many worry that the expansion of federal authority could include crimes such as any rape, which is usually targeted at women.
"It actually punishes someone for what he thinks," said one Senate staffer whose boss opposes any form of the legislation. "That's pretty scary."
Conservatives also dislike a provision in the bill that defines "hate crimes" to include any violent crime "motivated by prejudice based on ... gender, sexual orientation or disability of the victim."
"With this bill, the federal government officially condones [the homosexual] lifestyle," said another Senate staffer.
In the past, Mr. Hatch said he opposed including "gender prejudice" in the bill because it is too broad and could apply to all rapes. But, he added, he supports including prejudice based on sexual orientation.
"People have got to grow up and realize that that's an important issue to many, many people in our society and nobody should be discriminated against," Mr. Hatch said recently.
A similar version of the current agreement was introduced by Mr. Kennedy in May but was stalled by deep opposition from several Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Hatch's office declined officially to comment on the proposal, but supporters of Mr. Hatch pointed to several changes to the original Kennedy plan that would make the law more acceptable to conservatives.
In several places, Mr. Hatch was able to somewhat limit the scope of crimes that could be federalized, according to supporters. Also, they said, Mr. Hatch insisted on raising the bar of proof that there was an "intent to intimidate or terrorize" a victim.
During past debates, Mr. Hatch criticized the legislation, pointing out that someone charged under federal statutes could get a lighter sentence than someone charged by local prosecutors.
The Hatch-Kennedy proposal allows for the death penalty.
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee, has been a longtime supporter of tough "hate-crimes" legislation and complimented Mr. Hatch yesterday for trying to move the legislation.
"We've been very close to resolving this for a long time," Mr. Specter said. "Only small differences remained. I think Senator Hatch's support will be very significant."
In the past, Democrats have enjoyed considerable support on the legislation from Republicans, including Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Mr. Smith, Mr. Specter, John Ensign of Nevada and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

[seer]

What I do not understand is - if I beat up a straight or beat up a gay I would get more time for beating up the gay. Doesn't that make the gay crime unequal before the law?

[Dr T]

It's a dangerous step. It can so easily be used to stop free speech. Is hate speach something I don't like, to many people it seems to be defined that way.

[Bob Jenkins]

"What I do not understand is - if I beat up a straight or beat up a gay I would get more time for beating up the gay. Doesn't that make the gay crime unequal before the law?"

Not if the law says so

[Queen]

Well, bashing gays in the USA was too long acceptable.....it's about time there is a law that protects them from these hate crimes...


By the way...beating up anybody for who he/she is or for her/his color or her/his sexual orientation or his /her faith is too stupid for words. It should be punished hard!! Beating up a himan being is wrong, but I guess the exception is self defence and even then......

How funny is it that homosexuals and bisexuals have absolutely no problem with how heterosexuals live their life....




Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Rahab]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

"What I do not understand is - if I beat up a straight or beat up a gay I would get more time for beating up the gay. Doesn't that make the gay crime unequal before the law?"

Not if the law says so

SEER..... I suppose in the course of your trial, the prosecution would have to show that the only reason why you "beat a gay guy"was because of his sexual preference. They would examine your history, ideology, search for witnesses who would confirm that you expressed anti homosexual feelings such as " homosexuals shall surely be put to death" etc.....
The INTENT behind your crime against any other individual would be under scrutiny.
The defense would have to proove that you could not care less if the victim was gay, that you beat him up to rob him, or because you had some psychotic attack of some kind, you were drunk etc....
If the prosecution can provide evidence beyong the reasonable doubt that you commited an act of battering another person because he or she belongs to one of the categories the law intends to protect from hate crimes, why should not the sentence be more swift than for battering and assault of a person for a robbery for example. Is not a hate crime the product of ignorance, premeditated thoughts, a long sinful process induced by ideologies which promote the extermination or mistreatment of other individuals?
Would you deal with a white supremacist who tortured and hang a black man the same way you would deal with a thief who happened to have targeted the unfortunate black victim who was crossing his way in a dark alley?
If Hitler and Goebels had survived to be tried in Nuremberg, should their crimes against humanity be sentenced equaly as the US military leadership which napalmed vietnamese villages?
What is the difference there? one was a horrendous crime againts one particular designated group of humanity because of their race , origine and religion. The other, a horrendous act of war.
The INTENT .... Seer.... that is what will be under intense scrutiny.

[Rahab]

Today @ 11:59 AM post located here
Dr T:

It's a dangerous step. It can so easily be used to stop free speech. Is hate speach something I don't like, to many people it seems to be defined that way.

Free speech should not imply the right to entice other influenceable ignorant individuals to mistreat or exterminate any particular group of individuals based on their origine, race, gender,nationality, religion, lack of, sexual orientation etc.. It then becomes an overt threat to the safety of another individual.

There must be some type of limitation of free speech or maybe you would not mind a 15 year old accessing a web site which might influence his mind into using his dad's weapons to wipe out students in his school? or even tell him how to make his own bomb......

[India]

Queen:

By the way...beating up anybody for who he/she is or for her/his color or her/his sexual orientation or his /her faith is too stupid for words. It should be punished hard!!

Lots of crimes are too stupid for words. A few years ago, one father beat up another father and wound up killing him because of an argument concerning their sons' hockey game. Now that's stupid. So what do we do? Should we make another law that says if you assault or murder someone because of a disagreement over a sports game, that's worse than assaulting or murdering someone because you're just plain wacked in the head?

There is no good reason for that sort of behavior. Someone who's going to kill someone over a sports game, or someone who's going to do what they did to Matthew Shepard just doesn't have any sense. Any reasoning behind their behavior is going to be warped. What good does it do to make a distinction between different forms of warped reasoning, and punish them differently? The perps need to be punished hard because they harmed another person, not because the particular way in which their thinking is warped happens to be politically incorrect.

[Pilgrim]

thereis no crime that is not a hateful one. I think it is rediculous to create a category of crime that gets special attention.

[India]

Rahab:
Would you deal with a white supremacist who tortured and hang a black man the same way you would deal with a thief who happened to have targeted the unfortunate black victim who was crossing his way in a dark alley?

Of course not. The first murderer committed premeditated murder and tortured his victim. He needs to be locked up for life, because that's one of the worst crimes one can commit and because he's dangerous. Would you say that he deserved any less of a sentence if he'd chosen his victim at random, without regard to their race, religion, etc.?

In the second case, it's not exactly clear what you meant the circumstances to be. If he's killing a man who happened to get in his way while he was escaping from a robbery, he needs to be locked up too, but his crime doesn't sink to the same level as premeditated murder and torture, and so his sentence could conceivably be less.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 01:50 PM post located here
Pilgrim:

thereis no crime that is not a hateful one. I think it is rediculous to create a category of crime that gets special attention.

[Bob Jenkins]

The law can and does focus on intent - for example, manslaughter and murder.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 01:52 PM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

The law can and does focus on intent - for example, manslaughter and murder.

ya, we see how well that works...

[India]

Rahab:

Free speech should not imply the right to entice other influenceable ignorant individuals to mistreat or exterminate any particular group of individuals based on their origine, race, gender,nationality, religion, lack of, sexual orientation etc.. It then becomes an overt threat to the safety of another individual.

True, there is such a thing as dangerous speech. But the best way to fight things like racism is to bring the debate into the open and publicly demonstrate why those beliefs are wrong.

[Bob Jenkins]

I have to agree with you, NSMinistries. But it is in the law and used, if we are to belive some of the TV shows, to garner some punishement for a case that may be aquitted even though more odious.