IDBillzFan Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 To be honest, I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about the idea of a Hate Crime Bill. It may well be that I've been politically asleep for a while and it's suddenly in the forefront again after being signed into law by Obama today. Now, being a harcore conservative, you may assume that I'm just going to randomly be against this because Obama signed it, but on the surface, it appears to be more of a Feel Good Bill in that those who put it together can get people to feel good about them. Here's why this is my initial thought on this: As reported on CNN.com, "Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to 'help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray.' That pretty much covers everybody, doesn't it? Is hate against a homosexual worse than hate against a straight person? If four guys beat up a homosexual, is it worse than four guys gangraping a 15-year-old girl at her homecoming while more than 20 other people stand around taking video on the cellphones? If one gang member kills a member of a rival gang over drug turf, is that somehow not as bad as killing a transgender? Is killing someone for revenge not as bad as killing someone because you hate them? In other words, isn't hate bad regardless of who is being hated? Why should hating one kind of person be different/better/worse than hating another? What other reason is there to pass this law other than to placate some constituents and make it look like you're doing something useful. I'm completely open to both sides of this discussion, but this seems like nothing more than a reason for a bunch of lawmakers to pat themselves on the back for doing something we should be doing anyway. While they're at it, why not pass another resolution that says we all support the troops? Rational conversation welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The classification of "hate" crimes elevates certain classes of people to super status. Therefore I oppose the creation of such laws. We're guaranteed equal protection under the law as set forth in the Constitution. On a silly side note, I half expect Crayonz to chime in about "a tax on gays being a hate crime" and him wondering how we're going to let them go without paying any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 "Hate Crime" seems like another crutch for inequality. I've yet to hear a cogent argument for it, though there may be statistics that prove it gets more idiots to plead guilty to lighten their sentences in much the same way gun leftislation does. I could buy that but it still flies in the face of the Constitution. The thought that "Hate Crime Legislation" will stop people from race related crime is ridiculous in the very same way that the possibility of the Death Penalty stops murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 My issue with Hate Crimes is that it is essentially legislation and punishment based on what you are thinking. Not the actions of the crime itself. The counter argument to that is premeditation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I was listening to NPR this morning, and they suggested that this Bill could help in two areas, one symbolic and the other in a tangible manner. Obviously in my view I could give two ***** of the symbolicism of the Bill, however there is a possible actual benefit to the bill, and that is a matter of federal funding to local governments that can not afford to prosecute certain "hate crimes". Here is what I heard this morning: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=114223708 Hate crime prosecutions can easily become expensive — especially when protesters and the national media descend on a small town. The Albany County Sheriff's Office nearly went bankrupt prosecuting the Shepard case. The new law would let the Justice Department grant state and local officials up to $100,000 to cover the costs of prosecuting a hate crime. This article didn't cover everything that I had heard from NPR, and what was also said is that many of these "hate crimes" are high profile cases, and this makes it awfully difficult for the small town justices to not pursue it with full fervor, and forces these small towns to pour tremendous resources into these cases, so the fact that there will be grants offered by the federal government to these local officials will help cover costs. Other than that, I didn't see or hear how this bill would tangibly affect things. I would say it is more symbolic and a form of appeasal for the gay community, specially considering how B.O has been receiving some flack from this group recently for not doing as much as they had hoped he would do up to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The hate crimes bill is intended for any acts of violence against minorities and/or any other groups of people or person who support or might support a liberal left and liberal political agenda. This also includes those who the liberal and the left show sympathies toward No acts, hideous in nature or violent otherwise can be deemed virtuous of such sympathy if the victim is a white heterosexual. hence...If said victim is a white heterosexual and victimized by any individual or group(s), so such they may be categorized as belonging to, associated with, or having the sympathies thereof, liberal(s) and or those persons associated with left wing political agendas, herein these acts will be considered as marginal, indistinguishable and in most circumstances deemed unworthy of media publication. Future referendums entitled"Whitey deserved it" "Cracker had it coming" and "200 years of oppression is my confession" have been outlined and a date for approval is forthcoming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm still trying to figure out how the Hate Crime legislation is even remotely related to a defense bill Was the F22 used to bomb a gay bar or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Black on white crime is 50 times higher than vice versa. Maybe now when blacks commit such crime than can call it hate crime against them as victims! Sound crazy? Sure it is, but as Frit0 said, this is only against white heterosexuals of conservative persuasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Anyone else think that the second this is brought up in court and appealed, it will immediately be deemed unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Black on white crime is 50 times higher than vice versa. Maybe now when blacks commit such crime than can call it hate crime against them as victims! Sound crazy? Sure it is, but as Frit0 said, this is only against white heterosexuals of conservative persuasions. Would you explain those ratios please? Feel free to go into detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm still trying to figure out how the Hate Crime legislation is even remotely related to a defense bill Was the F22 used to bomb a gay bar or something Didn't you get the memo. You cannot call them gay anymore. They are same sex consumer choicers. I am going to get the botox lady on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I think anyone who commits murder should automatically get life so that wouild solve any discrepancies with "hate murders" versus "regular murders". I am wondering about what lower level crimes might be included and that has me worried. Are stupid people categorized as a group? If you can be punished for duping stupid people out of their money our whole economy is going to come crashing down. How about mockery? Sometimes mockery can motivate someone to do better. Sometimes when you mock a stupid person they can see they need to improve and they do. Yes, some are almost as hopeless as Canadians and mocking them would be mean, but some people are motivated in different ways. Can you mock illegal aliens like Canadians because they started it by showing up here ilegally in the first place? There are more questions than answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Would you explain those ratios please? Feel free to go into detail. By ratio he means: A 50 to 1 ratio means that one thing happens 50 times for every one time the other thing happens. Ratios are used in statistics but also in things like recipes. "Two cups of sugar and a teaspoon of salt". Does that help? Is it enough detail for you? Where did you go to school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Remember when left wingers used to whine about fascism? Now they champion Thought Crime legislation. Orwell would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Technically - the hate crime legislation does not create protected classes. It simply makes it a federal crime to target individuals based on race, religion, etc. The new bill (I believe) simply amends the old to include sexual orientation as well. The problem is that the application of these laws seems to be done in an unequal manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Technically - the hate crime legislation does not create protected classes. It simply makes it a federal crime to target individuals based on race, religion, etc. The new bill (I believe) simply amends the old to include sexual orientation as well. The problem is that the application of these laws seems to be done in an unequal manner. No, the problem is that these laws even exist. Crime is crime, regardless of motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 No, the problem is that these laws even exist. Crime is crime, regardless of motivation. I'm not sure I agree with that (at least not fully). Is stealing a loaf of bread for profit more despicable than stealing it to feed your family? Obviously an extreme example, but motivation certainly can have some impact when it comes to a criminal act. I would agree these laws might not be necessary. I'm certainly no fan of creating redundant laws. I just wanted to point out that the laws themselves aren't necessarily discriminatory in their nature, but rather in application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm not sure I agree with that (at least not fully). Is stealing a loaf of bread for profit more despicable than stealing it to feed your family? Obviously an extreme example, but motivation certainly can have some impact when it comes to a criminal act. I would agree these laws might not be necessary. I'm certainly no fan of creating redundant laws. I just wanted to point out that the laws themselves aren't necessarily discriminatory in their nature, but rather in application. They create protected classes (homosexuals, black people, martians) and make crimes committed against those people worthy of tougher punishment. If that's not discriminatory, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 They create protected classes (homosexuals, black people, martians) and make crimes committed against those people worthy of tougher punishment. If that's not discriminatory, I don't know what is. How does the law specifically create protected classes? To my knowledge (and I could be mistaken) the laws simply says you cannot target someone because of their race, religion, orientation, etc. That could just as easily mean a group of homosexuals couldn't go around beating up people because they are straight. In other words, the law itself is a two way street. Is it applied that way? Probably not from what anecdotal evidence we see in the news, but I don't have any hard stats to back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm not sure I agree with that (at least not fully). Is stealing a loaf of bread for profit more despicable than stealing it to feed your family? Obviously an extreme example, but motivation certainly can have some impact when it comes to a criminal act. Which is why "degrees" exist already. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts