House adds sexual orientation to 'hate crimes'

N CAPITOL HILL
House adds sexual orientation to 'hate crimes'
OKs amendment to child-safety bill with help of 30 Republicans
Posted: September 14, 2005
7:00 p.m. Eastern

In what is being characterized as an unexpected move, the U.S. House of Representatives today approved an amendment to a child-safety bill that adds "sexual orientation" to the federal "hate crimes" statute.

The amendment to the Children's Safety Act – which, among other things, creates a national website for child sex offenders and stipulates that sex felons face up to 20 years in prison for failing to comply with registration requirements – was offered by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and passed 223-199. Thirty Republicans, 192 Democrats and one Independent voted to add the "sexual orientation" language, while 194 Republicans and five Democrats voted no.

According an Associated Press report, current "hate crimes" law includes stiffer penalties for federal offenses when the attacker is motivated by the actual or perceived race, religion or ethnic background. The Conyers provision adds to that list sexual orientation, gender and disability.

LINK



Well this does surprise me, not that I am for specific 'penalties' for crimes but this is one I can live with.

So if someone kills someone cause they are 'different' they get a 'special' punishment. Something just doesn't seem right with that logic but I do understand it when it comes to children...

so this is really no surprise....

"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims, are contrary to our entire system of laws," said FRC president Tony Perkins. "Furthermore, granting special protections based on one's 'sexual orientation' has repeatedly been rejected by Congress. It is shocking that a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators is now being used to protect the sexual preference of homosexuals.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by edsinger]

I'm against all these "hate crime" laws, every violent crime is a hate crime, I don't see why there has to be a different punishment if the victim is black, gay, or whatever.

A good example of thoughtcrime in cuurent times.

Whatever happened to all the love crimes?

I agree with Ed the notion of hate crimes is absured.
Who cares who the crime was committed against?
A crime is a crime you would think politicans would have other issues to deal with as it is without producing BS like this.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by edsinger
so this is really no surprise....

"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims, are contrary to our entire system of laws," said FRC president Tony Perkins. "Furthermore, granting special protections based on one's 'sexual orientation' has repeatedly been rejected by Congress. It is shocking that a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators is now being used to protect the sexual preference of homosexuals.

The racist organizer of "Just Us" Sunday that bought David Duke's mailing list to fill the pews for his Christian Republicans Against Minority Representation in the Legislature doesn't understand "our entire system of laws." No kidding.

What a shaved baboon. Is this this first time anyone here ever really heard of motive being rather important in the law? You have to prove that in criminal prosecution. It's kind of fundamental. The act is just one part of the law. It's the difference in manslaughter and various degrees of murder. A cunning defense attorney can get even the most heinous criminals off without recongnized hate crime legislation on the books simply by saying there was no reason for his client to select a seemingly random victim despite his means, access and all evidence against him. This was so prevalent in the south at one point it's exactly why we had to add the legislation! To convict criminals! You know the bad guys? Heard of them? :shk:

We punish thought every day, and review thought to determine the severity of the appropriate punishment! Was it greed, passion, an accident, self defense, a perverse sociopathy or one's affiliation in the KLAN that prompted the act. IT MATTERS!

Quit being mind control victims of right wing preachers and republican focus groups, and think for a change. The only thing being manipulated here is you. I've NEVER seen preachers and "conservatives" so upside down in my life. Pity the criminals? Please. Grow some ladies.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by RANT]

If there was a hate group out there castrating conservative, Christians I'll bet you would be singing a different tune huh, ed, dj, x etc....

Originally posted by whaaa
If there was a hate group out there castrating conservative, Christians I'll bet you would be singing a different tune huh, ed, dj, x etc....

Yes, they'd be a few octaves higher... But what's the point? Every group has been on both ends of the "red hot pokers" at one time or another, a crime is a crime... It's a violation of human beings life, liberty, or property. Dead is dead, and stolen is stolen... What's wrong with meting out swift and sure justice? Why are some in need of "more protection?" Protect everyone I say, and start doing it now!

Majic Flute Monkeys, not just for loving Mozart anymore...

"I've NEVER seen preachers and "conservatives" so upside down in my life. Pity the criminals? Please. Grow some ladies." RANT

I don't think that is what it is, it's "WHy are they punished more then others?" If you kill for something besides defense you should be punished! Who cares why they killed, if they killed then it is a crime and deserves to be punished!

"If there was a hate group out there castrating conservative, Christians I'll bet you would be singing a different tune huh, ed, dj, x etc...."

Ok that puts some weird thoughts in my head. Imagine Bush with no cajones? Mickey Mouse giving a speech! Different tune, hey, I get that! hahaha, easily amused aren't we? Yes we be.

Establishing motive is key to proving a first degree murder case, true, but the crime committed is no different. If someone tortured and murdered someone because the person cut them off in traffic, is that a lesser crime than someone torturing and murdering someone because of their skin color? The end result is the same, the reasoning is not. One person has a simple blind, ignorant hatrid that goes deep, while the other is a psychotic who can fly off the handle over something so petty as a traffic violation.

Whaaa, I suspect that if that were to start happening, we'd be out there (in high pitched voices) complaining about the court's hypocracy in dealing out probation to the castrators with a big grin on their face and shaking the hand of the criminal as he goes out to do his 10 hours of community service

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by whaaa
If there was a hate group out there castrating conservative, Christians I'll bet you would be singing a different tune huh, ed, dj, x etc....

Yes, they'd be a few octaves higher... But what's the point? Every group has been on both ends of the "red hot pokers" at one time or another, a crime is a crime... It's a violation of human beings life, liberty, or property. Dead is dead, and stolen is stolen... What's wrong with meting out swift and sure justice? Why are some in need of "more protection?" Protect everyone I say, and start doing it now!

I truely agree Mr. Music lover but as we both know; In America you get the best Justice and thus protection that money can buy. "Swift and sure justice" sounds great! I shouldn't have to tell you above anyone...

Welcome to the monkey house, it's a brave new world!

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need hate-crime legislation. But as RANT pointed out, the motive is sometimes a large factor in determining guilt and punishment. It matters if a man kills another man because he's crazy or because his victim is black.

It's not 'criminalizing thought'. It's taking thought into consideration once the act is carried out. Thought without action is meaningless. It's the act, and then the thought behind it, that's being examined.

This being the case, sexual orientation most definitely should be added to the hate-crimes list.

Why shouldn't it be? Unless you already hate people with different sexual orientation than yours...

BYW, gender and disability, which were also added to the hate crimes list, weren't complained about in the original post...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why shouldn't it be? Unless you already hate people with different sexual orientation than yours...

For the same reason Uncle Sam shouldn't be able to go through my stuff without a warrant. For the same reason the government shouldn't be able to torture anyone for any reason. For the same reason all ideas, even the most radical, should be permitted to be expressed openly.

This logic is very disturbing and very common in America today. We've seen lots of it with the Patriot Act. "What do I care if they read all my emails and tap my phone, I'm not doing anything illegal." That mentality opens legal doorways that should remain locked. Let's torture terrorists because it will save lives. Sure, why not, I'm not a terrorist. Suddenly cruel and unusual punishment gets tossed out the window, and the door has been cracked. Next, it might be convicted drug runners, to find out who sold to them. That's cool; I don't run drugs. Then mobsters get to be tortured to give up their entire operations. Then suspected terrorists. etc. etc. to the point where we could be living in a country set up like Gilliam's Brazil.

The law is a slippery slope, and when you chip away at established law, you set precedent. Precedent is what most judges rule on. Hate crimes, punishing someone more harshly because they don't like black people as opposed to a lighter sentence for someone who just doesn't like people in general, divides people on various physical elements. Today, if you're going to hit someone, you better be damn sure they're the same color and sexual preference as you, or you're going to get a stiffer punishment. Because of these laws, race is an issue. They're hurting, not helping.

Originally posted by whaaa
In America you get the best Justice and thus protection that money can buy. "Swift and sure justice" sounds great! I shouldn't have to tell you above anyone...

Welcome to the monkey house, it's a brave new world!

I'm only currently addressing the way criminal charges are on the books, and mitigating factors (like premeditation being legitimate) are applied, not the way cases are tried... That is a lawyer in a different pot of boiling oil... One that I have particular interest in.

Jurisprudence Monkeys, not just for a fair trial anymore...

Originally posted by Full Metal
"I've NEVER seen preachers and "conservatives" so upside down in my life. Pity the criminals? Please. Grow some ladies." RANT

I don't think that is what it is, it's "WHy are they punished more then others?" If you kill for something besides defense you should be punished! Who cares why they killed, if they killed then it is a crime and deserves to be punished!

With all due respect, that is what it is... an illogical upside-down reaction to necessary criminal prosecution. There's no reason to be upset about "hate crime" legislation unless you're a domestic terrorist or shady criminal defense attorney. And I suspect the 30 Republicans that voted for this are probably all lawyers and were mostly prosecutors at some point and know the deal.

If it's deemed prejudicial to even bring to light a suspect's affiliation in the Klan or prior statements of racist and bigoted threats prior to an act because it might make the jury unfairly think the guy that drug you behind a truck "for no reason" is a bad person... it's a problem when attempting to prove he even did it.

And don't tell me we should just charge terrorists with trespassing and vandalism when they blow things up to spread violent thought. Though that is exactly what those against hate crime legislation are saying. Punish the act, not the thought. Huh? Since when?

Kids that sneak on my property to camp out, fish and build a camp fire deserve to be run off, scolded and probably put on probation for trespassing. However, if the Klan shows up and burns a cross on my yard, they deserve more. They need jail. Understand? Not the same fine and slap on the wrist those kids that did the exact same technical act with no malice whatsoever deserve.

There is such a thing as heinous violent thought. Intimidation. Domestic TERRORISM. And I'm not about to give Osama Bin Laden 20 years for simple murder, and a chance at parole in 7 for good behavior.

The guy that ran all over Atlanta burning down houses a few years back for no reason is now in a mental institution. If the Klan does that to black churches, they should be in jail. They aren't crazy, they're RACISTS! It's domestic terrorism. It's sooooooooooo obvious, why is this so hard for some? Being hard on crime and those that infringe on rights is a GOOD thing! It's like conservative yo. Preachers should cheer too. Not defend racist and bigoted violent criminal intent. That's just nuts.

The motive matters. You can't convict without it. You can't even dole justice without establishing criminal intent. I mean people will get off without these handy prosecutorial tools. And that's all it is, a tool. Now stop making me play the conservative on this board. It's icky.

Rant: I disagree that motive is really the issue that should be covered by legislation.

In reality there are billions of reasons people do all sorts of stupid things, legal an illegal alike. When it comes down to it:

-Is it any deterent? No.

-Does it promote justice or equity? No.

-Does it mitigate suffering? No.

There are so many reasons, but the main one is that it is legislation, not prosecution that is the issue.

Honestly I think we have a real disconnect when it comes to equity in the judicial department in this country. It also seems to me that if equality is the goal, then they would not seek additional recompense or punishment due to the reasons behind said crime in the first place, but rather seek equal protection, not unbalanced protection under the law.

I respect your opinion on this and hope to get more into it, but I'll leave it simple to start.

Thanks

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm against all these "hate crime" laws, every violent crime is a hate crime, I don't see why there has to be a different punishment if the victim is black, gay, or whatever.

Well, shoot, I'd hardly think you'd commit a crime against someone 'cause you LOVE them.

Who cares why you did the crime, the fact is you did it. Period.

Actually, hate crimes are a wise idea.

They are an extension of the premeditated punishment system and help to extend the period in prison for someone if they took part in it.

For example, killing someone for the sake of killing them is different to killing someone because they are black. It also helps to place murderers, etc, in prison for a longer period of time than they would have initially been. At first it might seem both are the same [resulting in murder] however while in court they are very different...

Originally posted by Odium
For example, killing someone for the sake of killing them is different to killing someone because they are black. It also helps to place murderers, etc, in prison for a longer period of time than they would have initially been.

Seems to me if you kill someone just to kill them, then that is worse than killing for a reason. But, killing is making someone dead, there is no gray area here.

As far as hate crime/murders....I'm confused. If a man hates his wife and kills her, isn't that a hate crime. If a woman hates her boss and kills him, isn't that a hate crime.

If we just applied the laws we have on the books instead of making deals with criminals, we shouldn't need more laws reagrding murder.

Hate crimes just add an extra level of pre-meditation to the trial and can also swing a jury fairly easily. It's rarely used in the U.K. unless the person is highly and openly anti-black, etc, and specifically targetted that person due to his skin colour.

It is there because that involves an extra level of planning than if it was targetting someone for robbery.