House passes hate crimes bill

[jefferson_dem]

Source: CNN

House passes hate crimes bill
Posted: 05:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday expanding federal protection against hate crimes to disability, gender, and
sexual orientation.

The bill, which was approved by a margin of 249-175, passed in a sharply-divided partisan vote. An overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the measure, while most Republicans were opposed.

The proposal, which now moves to the Senate for further consideration, is one of the most sensitive civil rights issues to come before the Congress in years. Currently, federal law covers only a person's race, religion, or national origin.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would also expand federal protection against hate crimes to acts committed under any circumstance, as opposed to acts committed only when an individual is engaged in certain federally-designated activities, such as voting.

Known as the Matthew Shepard Act, the measure would allow the attorney general to issue grants to cities and states for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Shepard was a gay student at the University of Wyoming who died in 1998 after being attacked because of his sexual orientation.

The bill has received support from a range of civil rights and law enforcement groups, who argue that is a necessary addition to civil rights protections first issued over forty years ago.

"Hate crimes tear the fabric of our society … because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, said during the debate on the House floor.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/house-p... /

[mtf80123]

1. Right on...

How long has this been on the table? 40 years..?

Oh my... what will the biggots do now?

Never mind... they are in their back-yard bomb shelters praying for their own selfish needs.

[JonLP24]

2. K&R

[annabanana]

3. I am so glad for this. .

It shouldn't have required so much heavy lifting....

k&r

[cliffordu]

4. Most excellent.

[askeptic]

5. So it's not a crime to attack someone now?

Regardless of whether hate or other reasons of malice are involved, I guess that to me, it's the crime itself that ought to be punished. I mean it doesn't seem to me that someone who is attacked is hurt or worse suffers the same, regardless of the motive. This seems to set up a special class of motive, and I can't agree with it.

[JonLP24]

8. It is more then just that

Here is some of what is in the bill


# remove the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;
# give federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
# provide $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help State and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;
# require the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people (statistics for the other groups are already tracked)

I'd say go back to freerepublic and watch Glenn Beck but I'm only 90% sure you're freeper.

[askeptic]

17. Well - at least some argument - but still strawman attack

Sorry - been a liberal for probably longer than you've lived. I just disagree with the concept of creating a special class of crimes based on their motive rather than the criminal activity itself. So I don't celebrate going down the road of extending "hate" crime.

It is a shame that you instantly conclude that disagreement with you means one must be a freeper. Maybe our tent isn't very big at all if all we can do is engage in groupthink!

[JonLP24]

26. Well sorry, you said something I heard directly from Glenn Beck

But you haven't told me what exactly is wrong with the bill. People will still be prosecuted for violent crime

At the request of a State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the Criminal investigation or prosecution of that crime that includes

a)violence
b)constitutes a violence under state, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

Priority- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more then one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Then it goes on to grants and the fact you sevre additional prison time for crimes motivated by hatred for race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender, national origin, and disability of the victim.

You feel it is wrong to increase penalties for people that harm others based on what they look like or who they are? For example a guy that hates muslims or whatever that injures or kills them based on that motivation should get tougher penalties then someone that kills or injures someone because he or she 'crossed' him or some other reason.

[Critters2]

10. You're reciting the talking points quite nicely.

You forgot to pound on the podium and insist that this violates the 1st Amendment. But you can always edit your post.

[askeptic]

13. You guys just disrespect all differing opinions?

I've felt this way for 30 years, and it is quit disrespectful to simply dismiss the argument as irrelevent because someone you disagree with in general politically has voiced the same opinion. How about making a point?

[libnnc]

36. incoherent babbling

lather, rinse, repeat

*yawn*

[Zhade]

59. No, just stupid opinions that encourage hate crimes.

NT!

[FreeState]

11. So do you advocate for the removal of all hate crime laws or just the gay ones? n/t

[askeptic]

14. Your own prejudice is displayed in your strawman

You assume that because I disagree with the idea of a special class of crime based on it's motive that I am somehow anti-gay? I see there is no actual reasoned argument, just simply straw-man attacks at any who disagree.

Oh - and yes - I disagree with the concept of "Hate Crime".

[mrbarber]

20. No one said you were "anti-gay"

Keep spewing those talking points though, your not fooling anyone.

[uppityperson]

23. who said you were "anti-gay"? That poster asked you a question.

You seem to be defensive when asked questions and rather than answering, just shout "strawman" and then attack. So do you advocate for the removal of all hate crime laws or just the gay ones?

[askeptic]

42. You should read the posts - here, I'll paste it

From reply #14

"Oh - and yes - I disagree with the concept of "Hate Crime"."

So can you understand from my reply that I am against hate crime bills in general?

[JonLP24]

12. Summary of the bill. You need to read it instead of reciting RW talking points

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 - Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.

Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist state, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to: (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and (2) award grants to state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.

Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to expand data collection and reporting requirements under such Act to include: (1) crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and (2) hate crimes committed by and against juveniles.

Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01913:@@...

[askeptic]

15. Please provide a reasoned argument and not strawman attack

The legislation does nothing to justify a special class. Make an argument, and please knock off the strawman attacks on those who disagree with you. I've been a liberal all of my life and resent your attempt to dismiss the subject as "RW Talking Points"

[uppityperson]

18. What special class does this bill justify?

Please clarify. Thank you

[askeptic]

25. Hate is a motive - it makes the motive the crime

Not just this bill, you understand. I disagree with the concept of making the motive the crime. The crime is the assault, murder, or whatever else you do to another. Hate of a group or class of individuals is certainly irrational and intolerant, but so are many other beliefs and views.

For example, attacking another verbally because they disagree with the majority of posters on this thread could be deemed as irrational and intolerant. Especially when no actual rebuttal argument is made.

[JonLP24]

28. It's not the same kind of motive as he or she 'crossed' me

Therefore they should recieve harsher penalties. People that hate should realize there punishment will be longer in order to protect people of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Also this bill prohibits employers and services from denying people of the listed classifications.

[askeptic]

37. What makes it worse?

Look. It just seems to me that the crime is what matters. Certainly we as a society understand and even remove some penalty when the motive has some validity. But it seems to me that "he/she crossed me" is just as stupid as "I hate gay people and he/she was gay" (which seems to be simply another way of saying the were crossed). So I am having a hard time seeing the distinction that you seem to see as pretty big.

As far as employers go, these are already protected and laws against discrimination by the employer based on these factors already exist. Not sure what it really adds.

Finally, I think this does tend to adopt the bankrupt notion of the right wing "law and order" crowd that somehow harsher punishment serves as a deterrent, when there is no actual evidence to back that up. As a liberal, I just don't think our problems are solved by trying to make every behavior we dislike into a crime. "Hate" crime laws seem to go even beyond behavior, and seem to attempt to make one's thoughts and prejudices a crime in and of themselves.

I also want to thank you for being civil and trying to have a conversation. I'm a life-long liberal and participate in liberal causes and activities and it is galling to be called a freeper whenever one disagrees with the apparent majority opinion.

[JonLP24]

40. What makes it worse

About violence motivated by hatred for the groups I already listed is that it disrupts the tranquility and safety of those communities and it is deeply divisive. It's very different then someone who injures or kills someone because he or she ripped him off or whatever personal reason. Basically when it comes to that individual you don't have to worry about anything happening to you as long as you keep to yourself and don't bother that person. But definately the person should recieve a punishment. The only way to avoid anything happening to you by someone who hates black people and is violent is to be white. That is where the difference lies. Now as far as longer prison time is more to protect the individuals of those communities. The person who commits an act of violence over something like having sex with his/her spouse is less likely to re-committ then someone who has deep seeded hatred against muslims. Do you understand?

[askeptic]

44. Nope - I just don't find your argument persuasive

But I promise not to call you names! Thanks for taking the time to be civil and share your viewpoint!

[JonLP24]

45. Well I did my best

If that isn't enough reason to support HCL then nothing is.

[JonLP24]

52. Post #19 explains it better then I can

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If that doesn't change your viewpoint little will.

[uppityperson]

29. So what special class does this bill justify? I think you are saying you want

crimes of violence to be seen as crimes of violence because they are crimes of violence, not because they are done, in particular, just against a member of a marrow group.

But what special class does this bill justify? Ignoring your snark, which you seem to have to do every time you post, what special class does this bill justify?

[JonLP24]

35. Delete (Sorry)

I thought you were the other poster replying to me but you actually replied to him or her. That probaly explains why I was confused by the repeated questioning of What special class does this justify?

[malti_poo]

57. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-pr

"Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech."

Except that what yoo say can now get you prosecuted.

[blaze]

58. Are you in the right place?

[Zhade]

60. Clearly not.

NT!

[Binka]

63. ZAP!

The poo has been flushed.

[Binka]

61. Cool! John Yoo Can Be Prosecuted? Wow Cool!

Now go away, "yoo" clown.

[blaze]

64. LOL!

[Zenlitened]

43. Well, I'm not an attorney, but...

... but I have the entire first season of 'Night Court' on DVD.

So let me explain this in simple terms...

[uppityperson]

6. about time

[winyanstaz]

7. Oh Noz!!!!! Soon there will be no one left that it is ok to hate :S

What will the haters do without someone to hate? The world might come to an end.

[askeptic]

16. Really? You think this outlaws hate?

And here I was under the impression that the crime had to involve more than just thought.

[libnnc]

33. babbling nonsense

[askeptic]

46. So THAT's how you get 1000 posts!

You don't have to bother to try to understand or respect the other person's point of view. You just type the same phrase 100 times! Wow!

[libnnc]

48. and you can't cogently express your argument

Oh, and you've violated DU rules btw.

<alert>

[askeptic]

51. Look up needling in fallacious arguments

a) You never made an argument. That puts you in a very untenable position.

a fallacies link for you : http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.ht...

look up Needling and Failure to State.

Ooooh! I used CAPS!

[libnnc]

55. this legislation has passed the House and will pass in the Senate

and then it will be signed by the POTUS. Not a thing you can do to stop it.

Sucks for you, doesn't it?

[winyanstaz]

56. Just so you know...that was a joke of sorts...

I thought the "Oh NOZ" was a dead give away

[santamargarita]

9. It's about time!

[askeptic]

19. Only groupthinkers should post here lest you get attacked

Everyone KNOWS that ALL liberals MUST agree with the idea of HATE CRIME lest you be called names and kicked out of the liberal groupthink club!

No real argument is offered in rebuttal, nor is it deemed as necessary by the groupthinkers because there are acceptable opinions and unacceptable opinions and on DU, these folks think their opinions reign supreme and need no justification.

[libnnc]

21. what are you babbling about?

[askeptic]

27. Sorry the words were too complex - take your time

[libnnc]

31. again with the babbling

get the marbles out of your mouth

[mrbarber]

22. Yes yes

Were all very impressed that you wandered over from Free Republic and managed to write 76 posts without being noticed as a troll.

[Binka]

62. It Only Took Since 2002

I guess he/she/it had to take some breaks to chew their toenails and eat their ear wax.

[uppityperson]

24. You haven't answered questions asked of you. Try again, here you go...

1) So do you advocate for the removal of all hate crime laws or just the gay ones?
2) What special class does this bill justify?

I am seriously interested in your answers.

[askeptic]

30. 1) ALL 2) Motive is not the crime

I've already answered in your previous post

[libnnc]

32. babbling again

[uppityperson]

34. No, you didn't answer "what special class does this bill justify?"

Though perhaps I am asking the wrong question since you wrote;
"The legislation does nothing to justify a special class"

What special class are you talking about? It does nothing to justify a special class, and so....?

[Sgent]

38. Waste of time and protection

The Mathew Shepard Bill? The perpetrators of the heinous act are already up for the death penalty, I don't understand what a sentencing addition will do...

From a previous poster, the bill will:

# remove the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;

Good luck with this. The supreme court struck down a similar law regarding guns near schools because it reached too far.

# give federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;

I actually don't have a problem with this, but don't understand why it shouldn't apply to all crimes.

# provide $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help State and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;

How about just properly funding the police/DA's offices in the first place?

# require the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people (statistics for the other groups are already tracked)

No problem with this.

My real issue is that GLBT status needs to be written into law as a protected status (similar to race, ethnicity, gender, etc.), and thus get the full benefit of all civil rights laws.

[askeptic]

39. Thanks for saying what I can't seem to

I agree with your points and wish I'd made them. Thanks.

[JonLP24]

47. It also applys to acts of violence that don't result in death

But you did make good points.

[JonLP24]

49. Replied to add they were spared the death penalty

LA Times Cart, Julie (1999-11-05). "Killer of Gay Student Is Spared Death Penalty; Courts: Matthew Shepard's father says life in prison shows 'mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy.'"

[Sgent]

50. True

but they were still eligible for it -- which is all the law can do in the first place. Congress can not require a death penalty -- only a jury, or in some rare cases a judge, can do that.

[JonLP24]

53. That's true. However one of the killers took a plea bargain to avoid trial and DP

The other stood trial and lost but was still spared the DP which I agree with. The Green River Killer killed 40 victims and he is serving life in prison.

[Cha]

41. Yay! In spite of

crapheads like virginia fox.

[New Dawn]

54. Not surprising that Republicans support hate crime.

[Mackay]

65. Hate crime legislation is never 'color blind'... and neither are its supporters...

Where was the outcry on DU for the application of hate crime legislation in this case? Clearly, the muderers were just as vicious and HATEFUL as in the Shepherd case:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/05/200...

California HAS hate crime legislation. Look how well it is being applied.

Same shit on a national level... great.

How about ANTI-TORTURE legislation??? Anyone capable of torturing another human being is a sick mother f**ker who needs to be locked away. That is what we are talking about here. At least, then it can be applied evenly to any sick assholes (regardless of their color, their sexual orientation, etc.) And to the whole Bush/Cheney crew and apologists.

'Hate Crime' legislation is demagoguery that applies to faux liberals who think that only minorities can be the victims of hate.

[Zuiderelle]

66. I'm going to ignore all the noise above to say ... YAY!!

This is great news!

[marshall]

67. How is "disability" being identiried?

I tried to find a more detailed idea of what is covered by the term disability. I assume (but can't be for sure) that it covers major mental and physical disabilities, but the term by itself is rather broad.