Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are obviously trolling and trying to entice a flame war. There is a difference between opposing the concept of "hate crimes" and finding the idea of violent crimes against anyone repulsive.
Of course wacky liberals like this legislation. It came in attached to a $680-billion measure outlining the Pentagon’s budget, which includes $130 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kucinich voted against it since he thought war was the most offensive hate crime and I agree.
Theses anti-war liberals were never anti-war. They were anti-Republican war. That is why they threw Cindy Sheehan under the bus and could care less about engaging in a war admist a severe economic crisis and with no timeline. But as long as they can get their hate crime legislation against gays passed at the sacrifice of their wishy-washy principles, then they are elated.
LOL...LMFAO Ok, so Obama pulls the troops out of both fronts. Using my little crystal ball here and some basic common sense, I foresee Iraq completely collapsing, think of Somalia, no organized government, regional warlords, and a empowered Iran gaining more influence in the region.
Ok now that Iraq’s done, more over to Afghanistan. With a complete troop pullout the Taliban would resurge, and hold legitimate government position within the country. They will then shift their focus to conquering the political machinations of Pakistan. During this entire process the Taliban will begin planning for another terrorist attack on the US and most likely will succeed in their endeavor. With all of these developments, the republicans will come out in full force demanding Obama’s head on a platter for allowing such calamities.
This stuff is ridiculous. Remember that we were attacked on September 11th by individuals within Afghanistan, and the responsible parties have not been brought to justice. I never agreed with going into Iraq and firmly believe that it was a horrendous waste of our resources. The problem however is the fact they we did go in. We removed a sovereign nations power structure, a nation in a region truly hostile to American interests holding our energy interests. As such by necessity it is in all of our collective interests to ensure we complete the task. Without such conclusion we are guaranteed a bleak future in that region. Moving back to Afghanistan it is also part of our collective interest to ensure the obliteration of the Taliban, because without such a future attack will be forthcoming.
As for Obama’s supposed inaction over a troop buildup, the reason for inaction is twofold. Check out Michael O’Hanlon’s opinion post within the Washington Examiner (a conservative paper btw). Michael praises Barack for taking his time in making this decision. Why? For one Hamid Karzai. We are currently pressuring Afghanistan to hold a runoff election to ensure a government committed and capable of supporting us in the removal of the Taliban. Karzai has been reluctant but by holding on to additional aide we are in effect forcing his hand. The second reason for inaction stems from Vietnam and the lessons learned from sending unrestricted waves of troops into guerilla war like circumstances. We failed to control that situation utilizing that frame of thought, consequently maybe another approach is better. Obama is not treating this situation lightly. He is taking a pragmatic approach to solving this, and I hope that he is successful for our collective benefit.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,395 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
My question is...if someone murders a random stranger, and someone else murders a gay person in exactly the same way, why is the murder of the random stranger any less tragic than that of the gay person?
ANY crime can be hateful crime, but having "hate crimes" just gives some people more value under the law than others. So...I'm opposed to the idea of different punishments for hate crimes. I think the punishment for a crime should be equal across the board, and be based on the severity of the crime, not the color of the victim's skin, their sexual identity, or anything else.
That said, if we MUST have a "hate crimes" designation...then crimes against gays should be included.
The way I see it, this provision is merely an addition to existing jurisprudence. We already know that context is important in prosecuting murder and assault--that's why we have degrees. Murder is not murder because motive matters.
Imagine this: I hate my boyfriend and he just made me the beneficiary of all his life insurance and financial instruments. I build a devious plot to hire someone to kill him but make it look like an accident. If I got caught, I'd be charged with first degree murder--murder for hire is murder 1 in most states. If, on the other hand, I come home one day and find my boyfriend having steamy sex with his secretary, and then I grabbed a knife and killed him, it would be a crime of passion. I'd be charged with murder 2, maybe even man 1. My lawyer could even argue extreme emotional distress--temporary insanity. So there are already all kinds of ways that context matters. This isn't an instance of thought police any more than deeming it worse to hire someone to kill than to just do it yourself in the heat of the moment is. No one is, or could, actually police your thoughts. I mean, no one else knows about them unless you express them, right? It's hard for me to imagine how they possibly could be policed, except in a movie world like Minority Report or something.
All crime is based on hate simply because someone yells vulgar words at the victim does not make it worse. Hate crime laws do not deter idiots. Someone who is going to kill is still going to kill. Someone that gets into a fight with a gay person is not going to stop beating him up because of some law. People with anger inside of them will still commit crimes and these laws only remove some of the heinousness from an exact crime against someone who does not fall under "hate crime" laws.
The purpose in hate crimes laws is to provide a means for the Federal agents and courts to get involved in a case if a gross miscarriage of justice has occured. Violence , murder and vandalism are state and local
jusidication and you can't take these cases into Federal court unless a Federal issue is involved like a civil rights violation. Killing someone is an effective way to denigh someone his or her civil rights. In many parts of the country the police officials , courts and juries are suspect and often will not convict even if the evidence is compelling and extensive. With these new laws the case goes into Federal court and is handled by professionals like Justice or FBI etc. Justice can be delayed but is eventually served. Just remember that poor guy dying trust up on a barded wire fence in some god forsaken place in Wyoming.
While I agree that all murders are hateful, not all murders are motivated by hate. Interviews with people on death row have indicated that many victims were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time; the murderer had no emotional attachment to the victim, positive or negative.
Perpetrators of hate crimes, by definition, have an emotional attachment to their victims and are motivated by their negative emotions to commit their crimes. Trying to suggest that these are only 'thought' crimes is ridiculous - if they were simply thought crimes, there would be no physical manifestation (i.e. a dead or broken body) of these thoughts.
It is truly sad that there is a need for this legislation, but need it we do:
"More than 77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June."
Good point. The problem is that too often prosecutors and the media focus solely on what protected group the victim is instead of the offenders intent. Therefore, these laws are being manipulated to give harsher sentences to people who committ crimes against protected groups and do not always prove the "hate motviation" that is supposedly required.
As for this bill lets not forget that gender was also added as well as sexual orientation, which I think can have much broader implications. Zealous prosecutors can now turn domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, sexual harrassment, peeping toms and other relativley common crimes into hate crimes. They far outnumber the amount of "hate" crimes committed against gays.
I am not quoting your entire tangent. It is obvious that you missed the irony that hate crime legislation is tied to a war bill.
Placing bizarre, unrelated, and diametrically opposed amendments into legislation is dishonest.
And it's practiced by all politicians. Nothing new there. Your insinuating that the dems are somehow unique and evil in their dishonesty, however it has been practiced by repubs alike.
It is sad that gays are so hated they wanted to keep them from getting this status...
It should have flown through the system after Mathew Shepard.
Agreed...our society should have realized that some groups seem to get singled out for violence; because violence is sometimes condoned by society.....and inadvertently encouraged by how society views certain minorities.
More reason to get rid of Democrats and overturn these kind of crazy laws that give special rights to certain people.
No one is getting special rights. The law codifies a crime, not a right.
Hate crimes don't target individuals. They target groups. A hate crime is no different than terrorism; it strikes fear through an entire sub-group of people.
Then of course, there's our history of slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, discrimination of gays, women, etc. To say these previously oppressed groups are getting "special rights" is laughable.
Why does there need to be a list of "types" of victims protected by hate crime laws? Can't anyone be hated?
It's not about hating an individual. It's about hating a group. Compare the systematic killing of Jews to a jealous husband killing his wife's lover. Two very different things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
