Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature

You can't force that. You can't MAKE people be civil. You can teach them. But no law will make anyone be civil.

Obviously. It protects your right to seek justice.

No it does not.

I can list a lot of cases that people were innocent and the legal system and the cops still went after them and they were not all minorities and they are not all drug cases.

They do not protect you.

totally wacked argument since there never was the right to assault anyone unless of course it is self defence.
This bill doesn't punish the crime, it punishes the person for thinking that they don't like gays.
It attempts to establish that's what they were thinking and then punish them for that thought.
your right, the forefathers would be shocked at the size and the control that the central govnment has tricked the people into giving it (or have stolen by force)

My point is that this legislation will not affect you if you are not in the habit of beating gay people on a regular basis. Now people have protection based on sexual orientation just as they do for race, ethnicity, religion, ect. Calling this fascist or unconstitutional is simply retarded since the protection it provides is already given to other citizens.

jaystyx is right. this bill has nothing to do with anyone who isn't in the habit of acting out their homophobia via violence. a bigot is the only type of person who could oppose such a bill. the end. nothing more to say.

He didn't say he wouldn't split America between those who support the freedom to assault and murder people for their sexuality (you, apparently) and those who consider it a heinous crime (humans).

Don't get your panties in a bunch, I know it's an exaggerated strawman.

If you don't want your party to be seen as worse than Democrats, stop opposing everything they do even if it means supporting defense contractor gang rape or murdering gays. It's a pretty foolish trap to be falling in.

Democrats oppose everything republicans do.

Give me a list what democrats have agreed with republican views.

Don't say what one should do when it's apparent the other side just didn't do anything of that nature. Have they?

And if you're about facts you will stop saying I'm a republican. If you're about lies you may continue.

nah doug is not about facts, just the way he framed that post was way off of reality.

For some reason Republicans want to sweep "hate and racism and homophobia" under the rug, so we don't see it. Hiding things does not solve the problem. I guess they want to protect the 30 percent who support the evangelicals and Palin.
It is those who would commit these crimes.

Yes that is the show.

yeh not to mention the rocks, missiles and suicide bombers in cafes coming from palestinians to kill jews.
But this IS america not israel -- our laws are for the space between our borders.

I say we kick the self appointed masters (the ADL) out of the country, or at least make them register as agents of a foreign government and let Americans write their laws.

You are correct.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is usually some sort of documented evidence, such as a note or conversations with sympathizers, as to how a murder is premeditated to give the offender that sentence.

How could the equivalent exist in hate crimes, outside of the now-less-common lynching variety? And how could it be proven? This is what I don't understand.

I suspect that those who are against this legislation are closet racists and homophobes, and just don't want the sordid facts to come out. Acknowledging the intent will hlep reduce these crimes. I may be wrong but that is how I see it.

Matthew Shepard’s killers admitted in court that that they had the intent of beating and robbing a gay person. Is that pre meditated enough?

Absolutely!

Much respect for your sensible, rational respone JosephJinx.

Although your opinion puts a lot of things into perspective for me, I have to agree with bc_f.

People will always find loop holes, and ways to work around things. Best we can do is start somewhere and improve it as time passes. Better than not doing anything at all.

Hmm. I see your point, bc_f. I actually didn't realize that heterosexuality would be just as protected under this; that's good to know.

But this law seems to allow for a great deal of manipulation. I, as a white male, could not profess that someone beat me because I was black and thusly file a hate crime charge against the offender. Same thing with religion; I would assume that in a case such as this, the person attacked for their religion would have some proof of this, whether it is family, friends, co-workers, or fellow churchgoers.

However, I cannot see how sexuality could also fit into this. Sexuality seems to be largely regarded as fluid, and while I agree that some sort of prevention must take place to deter hate crimes, writing legislation like this just seems too dangerous.

Because of the nature of sexuality, a "straight" man may be homosexual at heart, a "homosexual" man may be straight at heart, a bisexual could be asexual... an asexual might be gay. The nature of repression, denial, and sexual epiphanies gives way to a great deal more loopholes than some more clear-cut criteria, such as being part of a certain faith or race.

I'm just really uncomfortable with hate crime legislation in general. I understand that these types of crimes are punished more severely to protect minorities and discourage intolerance, but due to the legals problems that may arise from these, I truly feel that we should be focusing efforts on widespread education on these matters, prevention, rather than what happens after the crimes happen.

I will admit I am not very well-versed with the legal process, but it seems to me that discovering the true intent in cases like these would prove to be a ridiculously difficult process, rife with a high percentage of error.

"anyone can be the victim of a hate crime if it follows the guidelines"

Well that's the point I'm trying to make. All violent crime occurs because one person holds malice toward another. "Hate Crime" legislation serves to unnecessarily isolate crimes on the basis of race/sexual orientation/ad infinitum. It's nonsense.

you have a point Ares, but we live in an ethnocentric, white, heterosexual nation that needs this spelled out to them, unfortunately. it would be ideal if we could live 100% hate-free but that's beyond most peoples comprehension.

It would add special circumstances to the charges, making the punishment much more severe, in most cases the death penalty would be requested.

Absolutely, punishment for civil right violations should be applied equally.

That's dumb. It always has been illegal to assault anyone.
This is not civil rights action, it is an extra step to punish someone for what they were thinking.

this bill means nothing to anyone unless a violent action takes place. but montesooma says "it is an extra step to punish someone for what they were thinking". thanks for the nonsense. please read articles more thoroughly.

thank you...couldn't have said it better myself

And what exactly is different about assault being commited against a homosexual and assault being commited a random person for whatever reason? To me, the worst kind of bigotry is the kind that masquerades as equality. Hate crime laws are hippocritical, because they are not impartial judgements.

"And what exactly is different about assault being committed against a homosexual and assault being committed a random person for whatever reason?"

Ok, I'm going to have to explain hate crime laws to you.

1. Hate crime laws are applied when the perpetrator of the crime purposely attacked the victim because of that persons gender, religious affiliation, ethnic background or sexual orientation.

2. If point #1 is proven then it follows that the perpetrator of the crime not only had intent, but pre-meditated the crime as well.

Great, that's awesome. Now preconceived notions about somebody's bigotry are being used as evidence. We should probably start taking off lady justice's blindfold. Premeditation is a big factor when crimes are commited, but it still requires real evidence, and just being "a racist" is not evidence. In fact, it should be excluded, as with the creed of the victim. These things can affect the judge and jury to caste a ruling that is not based solely on the magnitude of a crime. I'm sure you know what the word "prejudice" means, I hope you can apply it to this situation.

I'm with you on this current89. Don't think we should be too worried about this unless we're planning on harming someone. Hate crimes regardless of the reason are premeditated.

So long as the KKK or Nazis aren't violently harming others, they still have a constitutional right to say what they want to say.

On the other hand, we have the same right as well.

As much as we'd like to, we'll never be able to stop hate, but we can prevent any dangers that come as a result from hate.

Yeah, if a member of the KKK gets violently beaten and killed because of that membership then yes, I guess that would be the same thing.

Yeah good luck with that...

It'll happen, I think with in the two years

What do you expect? Look who was in office. I'm just glad it's getting passed now. Obama has so much junk to clean up, it's not funny.

word @ both of you.

I know... better late than never.

next up, workplace discrimination laws.

You can still get fired for being gay in most states.

"any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs."

-If it is just a discussion, it would not be considered a hate crime, there must be a violent act for the legislation to apply

Are you being sarcastic... if not then what would you have said when freedom of religion passed or civil rights..this is civil rights.....

what? really? did you read the article?

Poor grandavi, losing his freedom to assault and kill groups of people he hates. What's left to live for? I'm sure the KKK has a support group for you to reminisce about the good old days when you could kill all the blacks and gays you wanted. Damn government is slowly ruining America hey grandavi?

The law will protect the physical body of a person. Unless you feel what was done to that young man in Wyoming justified? This law will also protect the people who spew hatred and call for physical harm.