Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime' Legislation

I will continue to beat my red-headed step child until they pass a law that clearly states it's illegal to beat my red-headed step child.

Originally posted by WTFover
As far as I know, it is a crime in every part of the U.S. to cause "bodily injury" or "death", to another person. A person has "hate" anytime they assault someone. So now, instead it being a crime, it is really, really, really a crime. Ridiculous. Strictly an attempt to get votes. Nothing else.

Really? Well gosh darn it. I thought it was legal to beat specific groups of individuals unless the law specifically sectioned them out as protected. What's next? A law that makes it illegal to rob a bank on a Tuesday if a clown is in an even numbered teller line?

Interestingly, the ACLU doesn't like the hate crimes amendment to the Defense budget.

An otherwise unremarkable violent crime should not become a federal hate crime simply because the defendant visited the wrong website, belonged to a group espousing bigotry, or subscribed to a magazine promoting discriminatory views

www.aclu.org...

It looks as if George Orwell's predictions are starting to come true. Remember the thought police and thoughtcrimes from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four?

It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals...to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

The government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling unapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime, or, in Newspeak, crimethink.

en.wikipedia.org...

crimethink, thoughtcrime, or as we call it now hatecrime. Congress is now passing laws that verge on regulating thoughts instead of actions. It's amazing that some people believe that this is a step forwards.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Captain Obvious]

Here's a question for those who are against hate crime legislation (and those who know what it is - I think there's 3 in this thread). Some think the motivation of a perpetrator of violence shouldn't matter. In other words, a crime is a crime is a crime. What about this scenario?

A man comes home to find an intruder raping his wife. The man murders the intruder. Should his motivation be considered? Or is it that a murderer is a murderer is a murderer? Should this man be charged the same as the man who attacks and murders a woman jogging in the park?

Does motivation matter?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

A man comes home to find an intruder raping his wife. The man murders the intruder. Should his motivation be considered? Or is it that a murderer is a murderer is a murderer? Should this man be charged the same as the man who attacks and murders a woman jogging in the park?

Excellent question! Yes, in the husband's case motivation would matter. However, I do feel your description of his action as 'murder' is incorrect. In the legal definition, 'murder' implies malice and forethought (not self defense, defense of a loved one, or something done out of necessity like protecting ones self or loved one). The term you're thinking of is justifiable homicide.

Therefore, technical murder (not self defense) already incorporates malice in the legal definition. Therefore, actual MURDER of someone for their religious, sexual, or racial classification already constitutes as malice at the core. Malice is already a factor in hate crimes so I don't see the need to make a further distinction.

Anyone who could hurt someone due to their classification is a monster. Anyone who could hurt someone for anything other than self defense or defense of a loved one is a monster. Both types of victims are precious and their attackers deserve equal treatment under the law- not more severe sentences because of who or what their victims are.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Excellent question! Yes, in the husband's case motivation would matter.

Then, in which cases does motivation matter? WHY does motivation matter in some cases and not others? I can understand self-defense (you got me on a technicality ) but what if his wife was already dead and the rapist/murderer was running from the house? Is it a "crime of passion" if the husband grabs his gun and kills the man who raped and murdered his wife? Does the motivation matter?

Actually "crime of passion" is just the original hate crime. Yes, he killed the man running from his house, but the motivation mattered. He got LESS of a sentence or maybe none at all.

Therefore, actual MURDER of someone for their religious, sexual, or racial classification already constitutes as malice at the core. Malice is already a factor in hate crimes so I don't see the need to make a further distinction.

And this is why I have mixed feelings about "hate crimes". But, seeing as how they exist and protect people for hate crimes against them for race, religion, gender, age, etc, isn't it only fair that sexual orientation and disability be included as well?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Excellent point. Now if I may I'll address this issue.

Laws exist that exempt one from murder or injury if the action is done in response to a perceived threat. Even in this scenario we would only pass judgement on what actions are taking place. A man sees someone else attacking his wife so he responds to what he sees. A jury would rule on what he saw and what his wife saw. The thoughts of the individuals are not in question. Only actions and response to actions.

This amendment doesn't make an act illegal or not. It simply elevates the crime to a federal level. One other ridiculous point that hasn't been discussed here is that "hate crimes" that include sexual orientation are based on opposing thought processes. "I thought that he thought that he was a... so I beat his [donkey]". There are no actions in my thought or in the thoughts of the person attacked. The only observable action is the attack. Everything else is speculation on someone's thoughts.

The law has a chilling affect on your actions. If you push a lady in front of you in a Wal-mart check out line, she could decry "hate crime" because she's black and elevate the minor skirmish to a federal crime. You pushed her (assult), she's black, you're not. An investigation will show that you posted a picture of the Gay Black Jewish KKK Clansmen photo on your Facebook page the week before, and laughed about it. Obviously you're a "hater".

You think I'm kidding? Watch and see. It will happen

(5) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

What about the Fifth Amendment?

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Wouldn't it violate my Constitutional rights if you try to use what you think I think against me in court?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Once again, excellent question. It does appear hypocritical at first glance to give people less sentencing based on their motivation (Killing an intruder who raped and murdered one's wife) but saying motivation should not be a factor in bigotry.

The way I see it, though, is there is a huge difference between killing an intruder on your property and knowingly seeking someone out to cause them harm because you have issues with their orientation, religion, or ethnicity.

However, by the very definition of our laws, motivation is already incorporated. Let's use homicide as an example. Murder (the big one) implies malice and forethought. Manslaughter (a lesser degree) is still when a life is taken but not necessarily with malice or forethought (and the distinction made between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter). Then we have justifiable homicide (the least) which almost always results in having the case dismissed. So motivation already factors in. The same can be said with assault charges, etc.

So if one plans and seeks out a person to harm them due to their sexuality, race, or religion, their penalty should be no different than someone who seeks to harm a person due to any other reason. Equal treatment under the law, in other words.

So because our laws already include motivation and malice as a factor, hate laws are unnecessary, IMHO, and provide unequal penalties. We already have definitions that legally include malice.

But, seeing as how they exist and protect people for hate crimes against them for race, religion, gender, age, etc, isn't it only fair that sexual orientation and disability be included as well?

Absolutely. If they are going to exist, then it is only fair, IMHO, to include everyone who is targeted for what they are. I do not care for hate crime legislation because it provides unequal treatment however if we're going to do it, then we should go all the way. Black and white, religious and non religious, homosexual and heterosexual, male and female.

What seems to be the case is hate legislation is sometimes only applied to some sections in the group but not another. So if we're going to have it, it needs to include ALL of the people in a group as defined by the bill. If the bill includes gender, then it needs to cover male and female. If the bill includes race, then it needs to include crimes against all races, including whites. If the bill includes religion, then it needs to include Christians, Muslims, Jews and even atheists, IMO.

So I don't like it but I agree- if we're going to have it, then we should include sexuality and disability.

Originally posted by Captain Obvious
This amendment doesn't make an act illegal or not. It simply elevates the crime to a federal level.

No, it doesn't. Hate crime is already at the federal level. It doesn't change any law. All this does is EXPANDS the existing hate crime laws to include gays and the disabled. That's it.

Hate crime was already a federal crime. THIS law only makes it so gay people are included. That's it.

The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

AP

Ashley, I've got a terribly busy day. I'll try to get back you you later today.

Hate speech/hate crime really pisses me off.

For starters, I now cannot call you a fag. I cannot call you a racist word. However, I can still say that you are an old ugly fat ass piece of #.

1. Now if someone called me a faggot. I laugh.
2. Now if someone called me a honkey. I laugh.
3. Now if someone called me ugly. I punch them through the head.

Point being, we are restricted on how we are allowed to offend people, however, people are offended by different things. It is not black white, it is grey. Some people would rather be called 1 or 3 but not 2, some prefer 1 but not 2 or 3.

Where is the legislation for those who don't like being called 3?

If we are going to include hate speech and limit insults then we need to limit them ALL or limit none of them.

Sometimes I just think people need to grow up and stop being so sensitive. Get over it.

All crime is a hate crime. You stole my wife, I hate you, I punch you, I go to jail. I hate you because you have a better car than me, I will take that car.

etc.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by george_gaz]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Then, in which cases does motivation matter? WHY does motivation matter in some cases and not others?

Here's why I don't like it. It creates separate classes of victims. Why should the assault or murder of one person be any more heinous than another simply because of some perceived class of the victim?

And yes, there is a term called "sudden heat" which permits a jury to consider motivation and mitigating circumstances when hearing a case. A man who is walking his child down the street and a drunk driver jumps the curb and runs over the child. The man drags the driver out of the car and kills him. A jury can consider the "sudden heat" of the father when considering the "degree" of the offense. IOW, maybe there's an option to consider manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder or something, based upon the circumstances.

In my opinion the class or status of the victim shouldn't enter into it. It's political pandering at its worst.

reply to post by AshleyD


And I must say, I agree with you. As I said, I have mixed feelings about hate crimes, but MrDesolate makes a great point.

Originally posted by MrDesolate
In my opinion the class or status of the victim shouldn't enter into it.

But the rape of a child is treated differently than the rape of an adult. That's based on the status (age) of the child... (and I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point.) Because I feel two ways about hate crimes.

I do wish people would understand what THIS bill is about, though. We're arguing something (whether or not hate crime legislation should exist) that has nothing to do with the bill Obama signed (that gays and the disabled should be equally protected). For some reason, people aren't understanding what this bill is about. For example:

Originally posted by george_gaz
For starters, I now cannot call you a fag. I cannot call you a racist word. However, I can still say that you are an old ugly fat ass piece of #.

This is totally incorrect. I don't get it. Can people not read? :shk:

Originally posted by AshleyD
So I don't like it but I agree- if we're going to have it, then we should include sexuality and disability.

So if it's a flawed premise let's expand it so at least we're consistently wrong?

As to the point about children by Benevolent Heretic, you make a good point as well. In my opinion, children are deserving of special class status because they are unable to protect themselves. And this gets to the crux of the matter. Everyone wants to be treated equally, equal opportunity etc. I find it difficult to reconcile the idea that a specific group is equal and able on one hand while conversely needing special class status on the other.

I think legislation like this is counterproductive in the big picture. You're either like everyone else in the eyes of the law because you don't require special status, or you require special status because you ... require special status.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. Don't tell me you're as capable of running the race if you require a crutch.

I still view it as unnecessary, counterproductive, and political pandering. Let's just make us all "special" then we'll be right back where we should be.

Originally posted by MrDesolate
I think legislation like this is counterproductive in the big picture. You're either like everyone else in the eyes of the law because you don't require special status, or you require special status because you ... require special status.

I have to say your argument makes complete sense. And I agree with you. Ideally, there would be no "hate crime" legislation. But there is. That's reality. It's been a long time (if ever) that this country was "ideal". And some people are being excluded.

I guess I see this as an interim step to TRUE equality for all. I don't like affirmative action, either, but I see it as the same. Something we can do to level the playing field UNTIL all people are being treated equally under the law. I would MUCH prefer that we just JUMP to people being treated equally under the law, but many of the same people who are balking about hate crime legislation are the same ones who don't want gay people to have the right to marry; to be TRULY equal under the law. They WANT gay people to retain their special status. They can't have it both ways, either.

I'd be all for trashing hate crime legislation IF all the legal discrimination would go away. And I'd be willing to bet most gay people would feel the same way.

I still view it as unnecessary, counterproductive, and political pandering.

You may be right about a certain amount of political pandering, but Obama has shown in word and deed that he supports the idea of equality and has said he would work toward it. If this is one step toward it, then, in the eyes of gay people, he's keeping his word. We're not there yet, but at least he's doing SOMETHING.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And some people are being excluded.

I don't disagree and that definitely needs to be worked on. Having some people excluded in Situation A isn't improved by having them granted special status in a totally unrelated Situation B. In my opinion, it slows down the progress for equalizing the circumstances in Situation A.

many of the same people who are balking about hate crime legislation are the same ones who don't want gay people to have the right to marry; to be TRULY equal under the law. They WANT gay people to retain their special status. They can't have it both ways, either.

Again we agree. And maybe I'm just viewing it from a different perspective. I think the answer is to stop the legislative pandering in either direction. I don't think any progress is being made by adding another steaming pile of legislation on one side to level out the pile on the other. We agree there should be equality. So why continue to add legislation that's counterproductive to the goal?

I'd be all for trashing hate crime legislation IF all the legal discrimination would go away. And I'd be willing to bet most gay people would feel the same way.

Maybe. But I think it's two completely separate issues. I think it's dangerous, if not irrelevant, to create a quid pro quo with hate crimes and some other yet to be identified legal discrimination. A war of laws? I'll repeal this one if you repeal that one. We both know that once a law is on the books, it rarely comes off. In fact, due to political pressures these laws will be there forever lest someone be accused of being anti-minority when trying to repeal them. What they end up doing is giving a group for which I have absolutely no trust an even bigger hammer to wield after they've read your mind and determined what's in it. The hammer doesn't change just because the person holding it does. We need to think about what powers we're continually ceding to the government.

We're not there yet, but at least he's doing SOMETHING.

Yes he is. He's doing what politicians do. All hot air and paper. He's creating even more legislation that serves to be divisive and (in my opinion) be counterproductive to the stated goal. I still don't see what this has to do with equality. As far as I'm concerned, it has everything to do with ensuring an ever widening divide between people.

Originally posted by Alxandro
So if two guys get killled at the same time, on the same day, in different parts of the city, but one of these guys happens to be gay, does this mean only the perp that killed the gay guy will do time?

I sure hope Obama is there to tell the family of the non gay dead man that perp number 2 is not doing time because their loved one was not gay.

There is no logic in your post. Case in point: the law will give DA more power to prosecute perps, not less. More power to DA == good.

reply to post by MrDesolate


I understand your point I really do. It seems instead of doing things important like equal rights or repealing the more draconian laws, he's just tossing a scrap out. It is pandering, and it's not productive.

We should all work to achieve freedom and equality for every member of our society. Unless all laws apply equally to every member the law is useless. This goes far beyond the mere fact of gay rights. Gay rights is just a button issue they pander with. look how it has upset so any in this thread. Now obama can sit back and look like he fought for equality, when all he did was create a lopsided interpretation of a law that should be universal to start with. It's another lame interpretation of separate but equal.

I support equality for everyone, without exclusion, because I understand that if they are not free, then I am not free.

This following video to help lighten the mood from the onion makes more sense then most of the twisted logic I see from the politicians.

reply to post by ldyserenity


What are you talking about? Here in NC these rednecks are proud to be rednecks, complete with the confederate flag and the jacked up mud slinging trucks.

And rednecks are cool as hell to chill with. Yea some have some prejudice but not all. I found out personally that it's not about racism but giving praise to their roots...i mean that is how THC channel came out with the HillBilly series.

I mean when someone white calls you a redneck do you think that's a racist statment?

Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime' Legislation

Obama, who signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in an elaborate East Room ceremony at the White House, said the bill finally cuts wasteful weapons projects that some lawmakers have spent years trying to kill.
******SKIP******
And the legislation includes a measure -- the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act-- that authorizes the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute violent attacks in which the perpetrator has targeted a victim because of the his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

WHY in the world would two TOTALLY different legislative pieces, one being the countries defense spending, and one to do with hate crimes, be lumped together?

This is how Congress gets things done!

[sarcasm]Well, if you want all these cuts in our defense, you'll have to give us our "Hate Crime" bill.[/sarcasm]

Two totally different subjects like these should never be lumped together in the same bill!

They should each have to pass Congress and be signed by the president on their own merit, not because as I believe, it's a give and take legislative bill!

You give us this, we'll give you that.

The way our systems allows Congress to lump such different legislation pieces into one bill to get it to pass, (instead of letting each different piece of legislation stand on its own, and be debated on its own worthiness and be voted upon on its own merits), is just BS.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by Keyhole]

The reason I am completely against this "Hate Crime" legislation is that it means that it throws equality out the window.

If you beat or kill someone, no matter what the motivation, you should be receive the same punishment.

For instance, I don't think it's right that if a man kills his wife for cheating on him he would get less time/punishment than if he killed a gay man. Not to mention, how do you prove a crime is a hate crime?

It's just not right, imo.

And if you have read some of my comments on threads about gay rights and illegals, etc. you would know that I am a strong advocate for equality for everyone.

reply to post by Keyhole


I fully agree with you. I think this kind of thing should be absolutely forbidden. It really, really gets me riled to think about it. These two pieces of legislation should have been voted on based on their own merits.