U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2009, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,712 posts, read 12,588,065 times
Reputation: 4165

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatchance2005 View Post
My point is that if Psychiatry classifies something as abnormal or deviant sexual behavior it automatically will fall under State and local Laws prohibiting abnormal or deviant sexual behavior, depending on their wording.
No, it absolutely will not "automatically" do a damn thing; the two are only as closely related as the lawmakers decide they are going to be. The statute itself defines what words used in it mean. Have you ever read a statute? Here's an excerpt from Michigan's animal cruelty statute:

Quote:
750.50. Definitions; crimes against animals, cruel treatment, abandonment, failure to provide adequate care; penalties, misdemeanor, payment of costs; exceptions
(1) As used in this section and section 50b:
(a) "Adequate care" means the provision of sufficient food, water, shelter, sanitary conditions, exercise, and veterinary medical attention in order to maintain an animal in a state of good health.
(b) "Animal" means 1 or more vertebrates other than a human being.
(c) "Animal protection shelter" means a facility operated by a person, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other nonprofit organization for the care of homeless animals.
(d) "Animal control shelter" means a facility operated by a county, city, village, or township to impound and care for animals found in streets or otherwise at large contrary to any ordinance of the county, city, village, or township or state law.
(e) "Licensed veterinarian" means a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
(f) "Livestock" means that term as defined in the animal industry act of 1987, 1988 PA 466, MCL 287.701 to 287.747.
(g) "Person" means an individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity.
(h) "Neglect" means to fail to sufficiently and properly care for an animal to the extent that the animal's health is jeopardized.
(i) "Sanitary conditions" means space free from health hazards including excessive animal waste, overcrowding of animals, or other conditions that endanger the animal's health. This definition does not include a condition resulting from a customary and reasonable practice pursuant to farming or animal husbandry.
(j) "Shelter" means adequate protection from the elements and weather conditions suitable for the age, species, and physical condition of the animal so as to maintain the animal in a state of good health. Shelter, for livestock, includes structures or natural features such as trees or topography. Shelter for a dog shall include 1 or more of the following:
(i) The residence of the dog's owner or other individual.
(ii) A doghouse that is an enclosed structure with a roof and of appropriate dimensions for the breed and size of the dog. The doghouse shall have dry bedding when the outdoor temperature is or is predicted to drop below freezing.
(iii) A structure, including, but not limited to, a garage, barn, or shed that is sufficiently insulated and ventilated to protect the dog from exposure to extreme temperatures or, if not sufficiently insulated and ventilated, contains a doghouse as provided under subparagraph (ii) that is accessible to the dog.
(k) "State of good health" means freedom from disease and illness, and in a condition of proper body weight and temperature for the age and species of the animal, unless the animal is undergoing appropriate treatment.
(l) "Tethering" means the restraint and confinement of a dog by use of a chain, rope, or similar device.
(m) "Water" means potable water that is suitable for the age and species of animal, made regularly available unless otherwise directed by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine.
Quote:
According to the links I posted (and Google pulls up many I can't access at work) they've been doing a lot of fundraising and maintaining a high profile politically. They claim an official membership of a few hundred. I'm sure that's low, and we're talking about all pedophiles, not just them. Maybe I shouldn't have included an example.
Maybe there are networks of pedophiles filing lawsuits of some kind somewhere--I doubt it--but NAMBLA does not even hold public meetings any more. Most of them do not even want their names disclosed publicly. They are a basically clueless little group of sad pervs, publicized way out of proportion to their actual level of importance, to give Bill O'Reilly something to talk about.

Quote:
What it means is that a number of people had suggested that pedophiles didn't need to be specifically excluded from protection under the Hate Crimes legislation because pedophilia is in the DSMV-4. I disagreed because they can put anything they like in the DSMV-4 and remove anything they like, any time they like. It isn't intended to regulate Hate Crimes.
It doesn't regulate hate crimes and doesn't claim to. That's the point.

Quote:
No I'm saying Congress should not create a legal protection for pedophilia inadvertantly. If they refuse to address it as some have advocated it will fall to the courts to determine whether or not pedophiles are protected. That will mean a pedophilic offense occurring and the legal defense claiming that pedophilia is protected by law. I am saying I'd bet dollars to donuts that when that happens one or the other lawyer will have a copy of the DSMV-4 under his arm. If Congress fails to exclude pedophiles, and the American Psychiatric Association changes it mind--again-- it will be the defense attorney and the defendant walks. I did not bring it up in the first place, but many others did. My point is similar to yours. It carries very little weight and is no substitute for Law and was not intended to be.
And it isn't, in fact, treated that way.

By the way, let's say, horror of horrors, pedophiles actually were covered by a hate crimes law. How would that in any way legalize the practice of child molestation?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2009, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,712 posts, read 12,588,065 times
Reputation: 4165
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
This is all ridiculous! Who in their right mind would want to "protect" someone who harms a child?
I would protect any person from criminal violence, and it would be a police officer's duty to protect any person from criminal violence, whoever they are.

That's not to say I would want to protect them from the legal consequences of breaking the law, but that's not what this argument is about anyway.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 03:40 PM
 
1,652 posts, read 3,050,626 times
Reputation: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatchance2005 View Post
The Democrats are wrong on this. If the bill would "add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law." it needs to do it in a way that does not grant protection or empowerment to criminals, like pedophiles. It is the Democrats not the Republicans who are behaving in an inflammatory way, by wanting to argue about such a simple and reasonable change to the bill.

Having said that, the article does not say "Dems push 'hate crimes' legislation granting special protections to pedophiles" it just says they're arguing over a Republican request for additional language they feel is unnecessary.

The concept of "hate crimes" itself is not at issue, as it is law, and has stood up to numerous court tests. I'm not suggesting it is wise or good. Many laws are not. It is an unfortunate solution to an even more unfortunate problem.
I don't get it... since when is pedophilia a 'sexual orientation'? It's just the Republicans playing politics... if they can link the phrase 'sexual orientation', which we all know means hetero or homo, to crimes like pedophilia, then they can de-legitimize the call of rights from homosexual people. It's a ploy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 04:05 PM
 
1,652 posts, read 3,050,626 times
Reputation: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
"Hate crime" laws are unjust. Motivation should be irrelevant. We're supposed to have the freedom to think and say whatever we want in this country - it's only actions that are punishable. The punishment for the action shouldn't have anything to do with why you did it.

For instance - if I punch someone in the face, the crime is assault. It doesn't matter why I punched them. Maybe I punched them because they cut in front of me at the grocery store, or maybe I punched them because of their skin color. Regardless of why, the action was the same, the crime was the same, the result of my action was the same... Why does my motivation for the crime matter? I'm allowed to think whatever I want, right?
Motivation is ALWAYS a factor in assessing crime... it's called mens rea... in your example, if you punched someone because you were trying to swat a fly, that's not a crime. If you punched them because you were protecting someone else from bodily harm, that's not a crime. If you punched someone because you guys were in a fight but you did not mean to kill him, you are a manslaughterer, not a murderer... now the law says if you punch someone simply because they are Black, or a woman or gay or Mexican, society has deemed that such crimes are particularly heinous and should be considered an aggravating factor. I agree. But you are still free to hate whomever you like.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 04:27 PM
 
31,370 posts, read 34,643,723 times
Reputation: 14950
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
"Hate crime" laws are unjust. Motivation should be irrelevant.
I just don't understand the logic or illogic if you will of this argument. In the evaluation of every violent crime motivation, along with intent are well established parameters for evaluating not on the charge but the severity of punishment. For example in every state the death penalty requires the establishment of special circumstance which have to judge in a separate hearing before jury and considering the long history of racially and sexually motivated criminality in this country, why shouldn't issues of race, sex and sexual orientation be included when establishing the severity of punishment. If the argument were, "it is unjust to charge someone with a hate crime" ie, saying nasty racist, sexist or homophobic statements or even fomenting hatred along those lines, I could understand, but this isn't what we are talking about at all. We are talking about evaluating what punishment should be levied for already violent and heinous crimes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 05:24 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 60,000,670 times
Reputation: 9374
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
I know someone here in NY that was 100% gay bashed. Jumped because he was gay. It was hard enough to get the police to even press charges. The local PD actually said "well, he thought that he propositioned him".

He ended up not pursuing the hate crime angle of the attack, but was prepared to if the police did not press assault charges.
I know someone who took checks belonging to another individual and cashed them. Total $50,000. Police said that it was a civil matter because there was no proof that there wasnt permissing given to cash the checks and the guy had money to be taken.. Would that be a hate crime?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 04:53 AM
 
Location: Gary, WV & Springfield, ME
5,826 posts, read 9,109,954 times
Reputation: 17300
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
I'm allowed to think whatever I want, right?
Not if this hate crimes bill passes. Not only will the reason you punched someone become paramount, what you think and say will be censored and tried to boot. It is the first in many efforts to come to completely change or discard our constitutional rights, particularly, the freedom of speech. But don't take my word for it:

Hate Crimes Bill
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:15 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,632 posts, read 17,674,695 times
Reputation: 2818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliceT View Post
Not if this hate crimes bill passes. Not only will the reason you punched someone become paramount, what you think and say will be censored and tried to boot. It is the first in many efforts to come to completely change or discard our constitutional rights, particularly, the freedom of speech. But don't take my word for it:

Hate Crimes Bill
That blogger and (you) should read the entire bill instead of just doing a search for "First Amendment":

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Gary, WV & Springfield, ME
5,826 posts, read 9,109,954 times
Reputation: 17300
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
That blogger and (you) should read the entire bill instead of just doing a search for "First Amendment"
My search was for hate crimes bill. Nothing less, nothing more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,632 posts, read 17,674,695 times
Reputation: 2818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliceT View Post
My search was for hate crimes bill. Nothing less, nothing more.
Then why did you post that article?

The article you posted states that they removed the First Amendment protection from the bill, which they did not do.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top