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.
Except for the fact that fatness is not mentioned in the law, and punishing people for intent is unconstitutional, you're 100% right.
A few thoughts.
First, you cannot end hate through legislation.
Second, government has no business even trying to get people to stop hating. That's none of its business. Literally. Indeed, its duty is to protect our right to hate, and our faculties that lead us to whatever opinions we might have, including hate.
Third, this law is unconstitutional by the Tenth Amendment. I find it astonishing that anyone thinks this needs to be a federal law, which is utterly insulting to the state legislatures, which are, in fact, perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether this should be a crime.
Fourth, this law also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. In our judicial system, motive and intent are two different things, and motive is not a crime. This law makes it a crime. That is why people, correctly, compare it to Thought Police. Some say, but this is different, because the result of the crime is to intimidate a whole class of people; but if that is the case, then you need to show that the person had intent to produce that result ... else you really are just punishing motive, which we don't do. Laws like this are really an end run around the prosecution's burden of proof.
I would be perfectly willing to support a (state) law that said someone intending to, through a violent act, terrorize or intimidate a group of people, is committing a felony. But that would require evidence, which -- despite being constitutionally required -- is an unattractive prospect to many. So instead, they just tell us that assaulting some people is worse than assaulting others, and get around that pesky "evidence" thing. And we're supposed to just nod in approval, because if you don't, well, you are a dirty hatemonger.
It's a sad day in America, that we incorrectly think we need such a paternalistic law, and that we are willing to toss aside civil liberties to get it.
To conclude, this is an obvious case of special pleading. Let him sign it. It'll be overturned.
How is punishing by INTENT unconstitutional? We already do it all the time - manslaughter vs. murder - and I'm pretty sure there's at least one other "level" of murder.
If you beat up a gay man in the course of a random robbery, it's not a hate crime. If you pick a random gay man coming out of a gay bar and beat him up because he's gay, it's a hate crime. Two different intents. One is a crime against one person. The other is a crime against an entire community in the form of terrorism. GET IT???
And unless you personally plan on beating/killing a gay person, then what do you care? It has no effect on you.
Yes I can see a difference. Thoughts exist in the mind and until the electical charges in our brains that causes thoughts start zapping people they cannot commit a crime. People who assault or murder people should be dealt with appropriately. This however does not justify making thoughts illegal unless some tyrant wishes to contol thought.
How do hate crime laws punish thought? The KKK is free to exist. Anti gay people will still be free to exist and say/think whatever they want.
How many of these complainers were complaining when hate crime legislation was passed protecting people on the basis of their skin color, religion, or national origin? Why is there so much outcry this time around? The most likely answer: Anti-gay sentiment.
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 10-23-2009 at 04:23 PM..
I don't understand why we need hate crime laws why don't were just have LAWS. Why is the killing of a straight person worse then that of a gay simply because certain words may be used. Makes no sense.
I believe you've made that false accusation before. Why do you continue to do it? This law will not make it worse to kill a gay person than a straight person. The law will protect people based on their sexual orientation, whatever it may be.
It also expands hate crimes legislation to include gender, gender identity or disability. Do you have a problem with that too?
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 10-23-2009 at 04:31 PM..
I believe you've made that false accusation before. Why do you continue to do it? This law will not make it worse to kill a gay person than a straight person. The law will protect people based on their sexual orientation, whatever it may be. Stop the stupidity, please.
Bullsh*T! The punishment is more severe for a hate crime and iut is WRONG! We all deserve to be seen as equals under the law. These special rights for homosexuals over others will just drive more people to be against gays.
"I think that we need hate legislation for hate crimes against humans. Humans who kill humans simply because they are humans not only kill the human but also attack humans in general. We can not allow murderers to get away with indirectly attacking the rest of the human race by only punishing them for killing the individual victim."
Bullsh*T! The punishment is more severe for a hate crime and iut is WRONG! We all deserve to be seen as equals under the law. These special rights for homosexuals over others will just drive more people to be against gays.
Next one who dosen't have a clue. hate crime laws do not cover only gays.
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.
