Are we going to be charged with "Thought Crimes?"

The press remains mostly silent about the "hate crimes law," the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the House on April 29.

Congress should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal violates all these constitutional provisions.

"Equal Justice Under Law?"

This bill would make it a federal crime to cause bodily injury (or try to) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability" with President Obama’s approval.

A defendant convicted on these grounds would be charged with a "hate crime" in addition to the original crime, and would get extra prison time.

The extra punishment applies only to these "protected classes." Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. asked: "Isn't every criminal act that harms another person a 'hate crime'?" Corry wrote: "When a Colorado gang engaged in an initiation ritual specifically seeking out a "white woman" to rape, the Boulder prosecutor declined to pursue 'hate crime' charges." She was not enough of one of its protected classes.
(Denver Post April 28)

The "hate crime" law does not apply equally (as the 14th Amendment requires), criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victims.

Do you disagree with Corey’s observation that: "A government powerful enough to pick and choose which thoughts to prosecute is a government too powerful." (Id.)

The "hate crime" bill allows defendants found innocent in a state court to be tried again in federal court. Attorney General Eric Holder says that when state prosecutors claim lack of evidence, it must be tried again in federal court!

What would’ve happened to the defendants acquitted in the Duke “Lacrosse Rape” case? (Of course, since the 2nd amendment means nothing to the AG, why should the 1st, 5th, or 14th?)

Curiously (or is it frighteningly?), the American Civil Liberties Union approves "hate crimes" prosecutions!

Why will no ACLU lawyer or other staff worker or any dues-paying member demand of the ACLU's ruling circle to at last disavow this corruption of the Constitution?

Perhaps President Obama, former senior Constitutional lecturer at the University of Chicago, should familiarize himself with what the Constitution actually says.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


This is a politically incorrect stance to take, and I agree with you 100% on this one. I do not wish to see anyone harmed, but violence against anyone should be punished. Hate and rage has to do a lot with it, no matter what the victims background is. Again, I believe any violence should be punished, no matter if the person is black or white, gay or straight, man or woman, etc.

I also believe in the freedom of speech, including hateful or hate speech. It may not be nice to hear, but that is the right we need to protect. These words may hurt emotionally, but they tell more about the people using them than the people on the receiving end of them. They are just words, and as hateful as they are, should never be banned or made illegal. The First Amendment is the most important one, as it is how we are able to express ourselves. I am against a flag burning amendment or any other way to curtail free expression.

Why should a small populated area only get help from the FBI because the crime had a racial or hateful motive? What about someone who was robbed and shot for a few measly dollars in their wallet? That is hatred of life, the worst kind.

My hearts go out to the victims and families of the victims of such terrible crimes. The best way would be to go after all crimes of violence equally, and help small towns when they have a murder to deal with.

Again, just because I am opposed to this legislation, does not mean I am for any type of crime against people because they are different. Violence is violence, no matter who it is directed against and should be dealt with equally. Then we really will have true equality.

reply to post by kidflash2008
I was visiting Indiana recently and read of a pair of robbers who were targeting older women using handicapped parking spaces.

They would wait for them to exit the store or their vehicle, then attack.

Police arrested them after a citizen stopped one assailant, leading to identification of the accomplice.

Targets: aged (a "protected class" under many definitions), handicapped ( another almost universally agreed 'protected class'), anglo (what, no protection?), women (everyone agrees on gender, no?).

Assailants: young, female, black, drug addicts.

Hate crimes? Absolutely not, according to the prosecutor's office.

Is this "equal protection" or selective prosecution?

I believe prosecutors should exercise "prosecutorial discretion," but not when it equals to discrimination in and of itself.

Recourse? Zero.

Deny ignorance.

jw




[edit on 15-5-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


I would definitely call that a hate crime when the elderly and handicapped are targeted. It just shows how the law is used in some cases and not in others. A bad idea from the beginning with good intentions. As the Chinese saying goes: The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I hope the law is struck down by the Supreme Court. There are five justices who will probably vote to strike it down.

The law still has to get passed the Senate, and it will be filibustered. This is the one time I hope there is no cloture.

reply to post by kidflash2008
Before the law gets to the SCOTUS, people will have to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a prison term over and above the underlying crime (having alreadty been convicted or acquitted in state court).

Then it must be upheld in a Federal Circuit Court of Appeal. Then there must be an appealto the Supremes.

This process could be sidetracked in a "Habeas Corpus" proceeding, in which the prisoner seeks a review of his detention. Again, he must lose at the trial and appellate levels before it goes to SCOTUS.

I don't know of any other way for it to get there without someone actually being "aggrieved" by the "hate crimes" prosecution, or threat of it.

Sounds like a long way off.

Now, here's a question to ponder:

Since the ACLU supports the "Hate Crimes" legislation, will they defend someone deprived of his/her civil rights by its application? Can they be on both sides at the same time?

The ACLU has become a p.c.-driven anachronism and more often than not tales positions contrary to individual rights and liberty.
(I am a member, although not in agreement on many causes - sort of a thorn in their sides.)

jw

reply to post by jdub297


The ACLU may be for the provisions to document hate crimes, something I am not against. If someone feels they have been given an extra sentence just for hating a race, creed, etc, they would probably be defended by the ACLU. They did defend the KKK and Nazis the right to march in Jewish neighborhoods in Chicago, so they would still back up people on the right.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by jdub297

 

The ACLU may be for the provisions to document hate crimes

??????

What good does it do to 'document' "hate crimes" if the concept is flawed?

I will guarantee the elderly female victims of the IN robberies will never be on any hate crimes list. Nor will the women chosen for the gang initiation-rapes out West.

If subjective determinations define "hate crimes," the system falls apart and becomes something else. Appeasement? Example-making?

I live in a community that is 80% anglo (I am not, I'm Mexican-American), well above median in income, home value and education.

People from neighboring areas drive 20+ miles to burglarize our houses and vehicles. The last murder here was 'black on white' in a robbery.

We are singled out because of our status. Undoubtedly. Undeniably. Verifiably.

Why aren't these "hate crimes?" Where's my "equal protection?"

jw