Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill

[TheMercenary]

Imagine that.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20070503d.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."

Well duh, if you call it a hate crime there has to be some stupid thing to hate. I wonder what the other 15% is that they classify as hate crimes.

So I guess I'm allowed to attack you if you're the same sex, religion and sexual orientation as I am. No? Then what in hell is this law for? And who decides if I hit you over the head with a 2x4 because you're the wrong color or I wanted your wallet? That's the real danger of this law.

[TheMercenary]

From what I have heard, the counter argument against the bill by the Bushies (and I disagree with them), is that they say it squashes the anti-gay groups First Amendment Rights to argue against gaydom... I think they are basically idiots and should pass the law as writen.

[Happy Monkey]

An excellent summary.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Court documents show the suspects severely beat 35-year-old Aaron Hall, then dumped his body in a ditch. The victim's family now calls the murder a hate crime.

They killed him. They fucking beat him to death. I don't care what color he was, or whether he was queer or not, there is no excuse for their actions. They are murders.... period.

I can see broadening laws against discrimination to make sure every one is covered, but laws that are already making something a crime for everyone covers that act/crime.

I don't have strong convictions on this but I just don't see the point of making laws more complicated than they already are. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?

[Happy Monkey]

Some crimes are done with the intention of intimidating other members of a target group. A burning cross on the lawn is more than arson and littering.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, good point. I'll buy that one.

[bluecuracao]

Also, some jurisdictions won't prosecute, fully or not at all, certain crimes because of the sexual orientation/race/religion/etc. of the victim. Federalizing these crimes acts as a backup.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If the DA refuses to prosecute a crime, (as in written down, yeah, it's against the law), can you sue in civil court like OJ or the "Girls Gone Wild" producer?

[bluecuracao]

I guess...as long as you have the resources to do it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your right there, you shouldn't have to... I was just wondering if you could.

I'm curious how the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007" is going to "Prevent" anything?
Like the death penalty "Prevents" murder?
All violent crime is hate crime... this is in no way a federal or Constitutional matter. It was/is a waste of our tax money.
The more the government focuses on race the more it encourages others to do so.

[bluecuracao]

It's not focusing per se, so much as it's addressing certain crimes that aren't given their full due in too many cases. If all violent crimes were treated equally, without regard to the status of the victim, there'd be no need for these laws. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Also note the contentious subject of this bill is not race, it's sexual orientation.

aaannnnnd?
Race (which is color, there is only one race), sex, disabled, orientation, the deal is that as long as the courts treat them differently they can't blame anyone else for doing the same.
It is saying to a family who has a murdered father (perhaps just a white man) who's murderer did not get "special" consideration, that their father was not worthy of the court's full attention.
How nice for them.

[bluecuracao]

"aaannnnnd?" the prevention part? Hell, I don't know.