Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 04:42 PM
Original message
Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure
Edited on Thu Oct-22-09 05:05 PM by cal04
Source: NY Times

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend new federal protections to people who are victimized because of their gender or sexual orientation, bringing the legislation close to reality after years of fierce debate.

The 68 -29 vote sends the measure to President Obama, who has said he supports it.

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. It gives them the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

Supporters of the legislation argued that it would deter those tempted to attack people out of bigotry, and that extra protections for those victimized because of their sexuality were needed because such crimes have been on the rise.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23hate.html?hp



Congress extends hate crime protections to gays
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/22/national/w141532D25.DTL
A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good news.
recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It's hard to believe that this is finally happening.
It is good news, ruggerson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cirque du So-What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'll take good news where I can find it
and I definitely consider this good news. Let the explosion of RW heads commence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolutely wonderful news! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fantastic news! I wish it weren't needed, but am glad it will be law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grassy Knoll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. GOOD JOB.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. I do not like this.
I know this is an unpopular position, but I do not think it is fair to punish people differently based on the sexual orientation, skin color, nationality, or any other trait of the person they killed.

Murder is murder. Taking a human life is taking a human life. To assign harsher punishments for killing some people and not others is to imply that some people's lives are worthy of harsher punishments when they are taken. I disagree with this principle.

I believe in the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Thus punishments for killing them should be also.

And yes, I understand there are already degrees of murder based on the state of mind of the killer, such as premeditation, etc. I am content with those degrees of murder. I do not believe this is justification for saying a gay person's murder warrants a harsher sentence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. A hate crime is a crime against a community, there are two victims.
The person who is physically harmed and the community that is emotionally harmed.

Atleast this finally means the death of the twinky defense, because trying to use it would lead to a admission of a hatecrime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Overall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. The hate crimes bill is much larger than murder--it's for all sorts of crimes
that are committed against people solely on account of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, religion.

Frankly, I want to see all forms of crime based on hate prosecuted more severely--it will make it even more difficult for hate groups to thrive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
50. You would certainly be with the trend. The public seems to be crying out for more severe punishments
Except when it's their friend, relative, or someone they identify with in the hot seat.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Overall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. Honestly, if a friend or relative of mine committed a hate crime (or any serious crime)
I would have very little sympathy.

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty and a long time in prison for a friend or relative would not make me desire a lesser punishment.

You and I have crossed paths on issues like this before and I know you disagree.

(But I have enjoyed fun banter with you in other threads, imdjh. I like your wit and intelligence.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. I wasn't talking just about hate crimes.
People are calling for severe penalties for all sorts of things, especially if the victim or harmed person is perceived to be disabled, a child, innocent, disadvantaged. Sometimes the demand is simply emotional.

There were many people calling for homicide charges against Jennifer Porter, a young woman who ran over and killed a child in Tampa, and fled the scene of the accident. Despite the fact that her stopping would have served no useful purpose to the survival of the child, her leaving the scene was given as a reason that she should go to jail for an accident that would not have even warranted a ticket had she stopped. This is but one of many cases where some people call out for harsh punishment for traffic accidents. No one believes in accidents anymore, unless it's his own fate in the balance of course.

Look at the people here who will call for the head of a police officer they consider to be fascist, but who will jump through hoops to excuse the more egregious of criminals if they perceive a social issue is in play.

One of the reasons I run afoul of you from time to time, and others here, is because my first inclination is to argue to the contrary. I'm the youngest in my family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Thats not what this bill does
Edited on Thu Oct-22-09 06:17 PM by FreeState
I know this is an unpopular position, but I do not think it is fair to punish people differently based on the sexual orientation, skin color, nationality, or any other trait of the person they killed.

Murder is murder. Taking a human life is taking a human life. To assign harsher punishments for killing some people and not others is to imply that some people's lives are worthy of harsher punishments when they are taken. I disagree with this principle..


Thats not what this legislation does. It allows for the Federal system to take over the investigation and prosecuting of the crime (believe it or not there are communities where someone could break in your house and beat the hell out of you and the crime would not be proceeded because the locals do not like gays - see Salt Laker City for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x146656).

This legislation makes federal funds available for crimes where bias is a motivating factor (When Matthew Shepard died the local police had to fire law enforcement personnel in order to afford to try those that were later found guilty).

The legislation also adds penalties to crimes that are shown to motivated by the victims belonging to a minority group.

It does not automatically make a crime against a gay person a hate crime.


Edit to add text of bill:

The full text of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as passed by both Houses of Congress is below.


H.R.2647
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)

DIVISION E–MATTHEW SHEPARD HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT

SEC. 4701. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.

SEC. 4702. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

SEC. 4703. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this division–

(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 4704. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of 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 any crime that–

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) 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.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall–

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 4705. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 4706. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 4707 of this division.

SEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

title, or both, and shall be subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228 (if death results from the offense), if–

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, and shall be subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228 (if death results from the offense), if–

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

`(b) Certification Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that–

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

`(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

`(c) Definitions- In this section–

`(1) the term `bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

`(3) the term `firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

`(4) the term `gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`249. Hate crime acts.’.

SEC. 4708. STATISTICS.

(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,’ after `race,’.

(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after `data acquired under this section’.

SEC. 4709. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this division, an amendment made by this division, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this division, the amendments made by this division, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this division and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply:

(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

SEC. 4711. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.

Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to–

(1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or

(2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.

(3) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

(4) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(5) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

SEC. 4712. LIMITATION ON PROSECUTIONS.

(a) In General- All prosecutions under section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, shall be undertaken pursuant to guideline, issued by the Attorney General–

(1) to guide the exercise of the discretion of Federal prosecutors and the Attorney General in their decisions whether to seek death sentences under such section when the crime results in a loss of life; and

(2) that identify with particularity the the type facts of such cases that will support the classification of individual cases in term of their culpability and death eligibility as low, medium, and high.

(b) Requirements for Death Penalty- If the Government seeks a death sentence in crime under section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, that results in a loss of life–

(1) the Attorney General shall certify with particularity in the information or indictment how the facts of the case support the Government’s judgment that the case is properly classified among the cases involving a hate crime that resulted in a victim’s death;

(2) the Attorney General shall document in a filing to the court–

(A) the facts of the crime (including date of offense and arrest and location of the offense), charges, convictions, and sentences of all state and Federal hate crimes (committed before or after the effective date of this legislation) that resulted in a loss of life and were known to the Assistant United States Attorney or the Attorney General; and

(B) the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the defendant and all victims; and

(3)(A) the court, either at the close of the guilt trial or at the close of the penalty trial, shall conduct a proportionality review in which it shall examine whether the prosecutorial death seeking and death sentencing rates in comparable cases in Federal prosecutions are both greater than 50 percent; and

(B) if the United States fails to satisfy the test under subparagraph (A), by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall dismiss the Government’s action seeking a death sentence in the case.

SEC. 4713. GUIDELINES FOR HATE-CRIMES OFFENSES.

Section 249(a) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section XXX of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(4) GUIDELINES- All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys’ Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.’.

SEC. 4714. ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN.

(a) In General- Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1389. Prohibition on attacks on United States servicemen on account of service

`(a) In General- Whoever knowingly assaults or batters a United States serviceman or an immediate family member of a United States serviceman, or who knowingly destroys or injures the property of such serviceman or immediate family member, on account of the military service of that serviceman or status of that individual as a United States serviceman, or who attempts or conspires to do so, shall–

`(1) in the case of a simple assault, or destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is not more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than 2 years;

`(2) in the case of destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $1000 nor more than $100,000 and imprisoned not more than 5 years; and

`(3) in the case of a battery, or an assault resulting in bodily injury, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $2500 and imprisoned not less than 6 months nor more than 10 years.

`(b) Exception- This section shall not apply to conduct by a person who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

`(c) Definitions- In this section–

`(1) the term `Armed Forces’ has the meaning given that term in section 1388;

`(2) the term `immediate family member’ has the meaning given that term in section 115; and

`(3) the term `United States serviceman’–

`(A) means a member of the Armed Forces; and

`(B) includes a former member of the Armed Forces during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the discharge from the Armed Forces of that member of the Armed Forces.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1389. Prohibition on attacks on United States servicemen on account of service.’.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Thanks for the info.
Thats not what this legislation does. It allows for the Federal system to take over the investigation and prosecuting of the crime (believe it or not there are communities where someone could break in your house and beat the hell out of you and the crime would not be proceeded because the locals do not like gays - see Salt Laker City for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ).

This legislation makes federal funds available for crimes where bias is a motivating factor (When Matthew Shepard died the local police had to fire law enforcement personnel in order to afford to try those that were later found guilty).


I don't mind these points. I think it is fine that the federal government have the ability to take an active role in such crimes.

The legislation also adds penalties to crimes that are shown to motivated by the victims belonging to a minority group.

I disagree with this. It implies that minority groups are more valuable than non-minority groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. How so
The legislation also adds penalties to crimes that are shown to motivated by the victims belonging to a minority group.

I disagree with this. It implies that minority groups are more valuable than non-minority groups.


How so? Maybe I worded it poorly but this law applies to everyone - sexual orientation is something everyone has. This law protects heterosexuals from violent gays that want to send a message of fear to heterosexuals via violence. Its not just one subset of orientation thats covered - all orientations are protected equally. Same with race etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
43. How can this be?
This law protects heterosexuals from violent gays that want to send a message of fear to heterosexuals via violence.

But how can heterosexuals ever be a minority group? You said "The legislation also adds penalties to crimes that are shown to (be) motivated by the victims belonging to a minority group."

I don't see how this would apply to a heterosexual attacked by a gang of homosexuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
71. Thats why I said I worded it wrongly/poorly in my reply
But the the language of the bill is above feel free to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. It doesn't single out minority groups
It covers race, religion, sexual orientation and other characteristics, it doesn't say the penalty is higher if the victim is gay. Read the bill and educate yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
51. You aren't going to like where this goes. That's my prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
67. self-delete
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 01:50 PM by DireStrike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Intent and state of mind are typically used to determine whether a crime has occurred.
If I drop a beam off a roof and kill somebody in doing so, surely it is a different act under the following circumstances:

(1) I shouted loudly and repeatedly that I intended to drop the beam, and had everyone check that there was nobody likely to be hit -- but just as I dropped it, a person who had been trying to commit suicide all week suddenly runs through my caution tape into the path of the beam

(2) I toss the beam off the roof without looking and without warning anyone

(3) I quietly tell everybody on the roof I'm going to play a joke on my best buddy, Moe, by dropping the beam right beside him -- but I aim badly and kill him

(4) I tell Curly he shouldn't have screwed my wife; he laughs at me and tells me she's been telling him for the last ten years that I just can't compare to him as a lover; and a few minutes later I drop the beam on him

(5) After spending the morning complaining "I'm tired of all these Mezkin wetbacks in my country," I hear somebody speaking Spanish on the ground below, so I drop a beam on him

(6) A stranger walks by and I drop a beam on him because I am curious to see how his brains splatter

(1) is tragic but there's no crime. (2) and (3) are certainly crimes, because although there was no immediate intent, any reasonable person could have predicted the accident. (4) is clearly murder, though some people will think Curly contributed somewhat to his own demise. (5) and (6) are also clearly murder, though the victim really did nothing whatsoever to me -- but they seem more depraved than the murder in (4)

Surely, there is nothing wrong in assessing a crime according to the intent and state of mind of the perpetrator




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. But that's seperate from hate-crime laws
determine whether it was an accident (if so, negligent?) or intentional is always done when someone is killed.

But this goes beyond that. If it qualifies as a hate crime then by definition it was intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Most people will recognize different kinds of intent and different states of mind:

I hate people who belong to the category X, and they deserve to die. He belonged to the category X. So I killed him can reflect entirely different intents and states of mind

Consider:

(A) I hate people who who belong to the category of giant bugs from Mars, and they deserve to die. He belonged to the category giant bugs from Mars. So I killed him
(B) I hate people who belong to the category of assholes who have been fucking my wife, and they deserve to die. He belonged to the category of assholes who have been fucking my wife. So I killed him
(C) I hate people who belong to the category of dark-skinned foreigners, and they deserve to die. He belonged to the category of dark-skinned foreigners. So I killed him

These are not at all the same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #22
49. Is the person any more dead?
Is the perp any more of a murderer?

If I kill someone because I hate them, then turn around and kill you just for fun, is your death less tragic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. If you kill somebody entirely by accident, is s/he any less dead than if you kill him/her for money?
I can't see a coherent point of view in your response. Essentially everyone recognizes that entirely different states of mind can produce results that may seem objectively the same -- most people seem to think intent and state-of-mind should be taken into consideration when trying to interpret what has taken place. Momentary carelessness is not the same as gross negligence is not the same as depraved indifference; manslaughter is not the same as pre-meditated murder; a murder conducted in a rage five minutes after a perceived insult is not the same as a murder planned for two years after a perceived insult

I don't really see much possibility for a conversation here :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. Accidental death/intentially death
major distinction, and as accidental deaths would not be covered by this, it is irrelevent to the conversation.

"omentary carelessness is not the same as gross negligence is not the same as depraved indifference; manslaughter is not the same as pre-meditated murder; a murder conducted in a rage five minutes after a perceived insult is not the same as a murder planned for two years after a perceived insult"

If only we had existing laws that covered those distinctions, if only . . . Oh wait! We do.

I'm not really sure if you have a coherent point or if you're just randomly throwing out what-ifs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. I've said clearly what I want to say. eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. That's unfortunate
because your message was at best misguided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I agree
penalize people for their actions, not their thoughts. If the murder was intentional (as opposed to negligence) then other reasons don't really matter. The person is a threat to the community because they have shown the capability to kill another person for whatever reason and should be removed from society for everyones protectoin.

Codifying laws that penalize people for wrong thoughts (admittedly very wrong thoughts in this case) is a frightening direction to take our country in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Read the bill, it requires actions, not thoughts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #24
46. But the actions are attributed to specific thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. The entire text of the bill is in message #11
Read it and see if you can figure out where you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. Not seeing it.
Perhaps you could point it out for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
48. No
it requires thoughts, the actions would already be covered by existing laws.

This doesn't outlaw beating or murdering someone, it outlaws beating or murdering them *while thinking a certain way*. Assault/battery and murder are already illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
35. .
Edited on Thu Oct-22-09 09:22 PM by onehandle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bush threatened to veto that same bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. Not to belittle hate crimes,
but isn't there something MORE important for the Senate to be concentrating on in their 2 1/2-day week, such as EUI?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Nope - this is important and LONG overdue. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. Shame on the 29 skullheadators who voted No!
Face it, Blue Doggs and Rethugs. A hate crime is a hate crime, and gays are also human. (But thank you John McCain, Maine's 2 liberal Republicans, and the 7 others who voted Yes)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Yes, gays are human.
Yes, gays are human, but no better or worse than any other human. So why should there be stiffer penalties for killing a gay human?

I am uncomfortable with setting aside certain groups of people for special protection under the law. Either we strive for equality or we don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. THe hate crimes law added "sexual orientation" not gays - we all have an orientation n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Read the bill, it doesn't implement stiffer penalties if the victim is gay.
It covers sexual orientation, if somebody is targeted specifically because they're straight, it could be covered under this hate crimes legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. Thank you for debunking the "special rights" smear
I hear conservatives complain that this type of hate crime legislation creates "special rights" for gays. It really doesn't. All it does is consider crimes committed against other people motivated by the victim's sexual orientation (hetero, homo, other) to be hate crime. Simple as that. It's just the bigots and hungry-for-fundraiser conservatives who make BS up to push their theocratic agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Right. Have any other briges to sell?
Do you really think this law will ever be used to prosecute gay people committing hate crimes against straight people? That will happen about the same time a group of black person gets prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person.

It's all equally sick. Your sexual orientation should not be a consideration for your worth as a person and thus extra punishment for someone who kills.

And I assure you, as an atheist, I'm not pushing any "theocratic agenda".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
61. Black people do get prosecuted for hate crimes against white people.
So much for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #45
70. OHHH ho. Now I see where you're coming from.
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 02:04 PM by DireStrike
Gotcha. lol.

Wow. In-fucking-credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
52. It doesn't create special rights. It creates a perception of preference or greater care.
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 10:25 AM by imdjh
And as I said before, I predict that supporters will not like where this goes.

There are people out there who honestly believe that white people attack black people both in greater numbers and proportionally than the other way around. Why? Because white on black crime is reported as hate-crime and black on white crime is reported as economic crime or random crime. There is politics to this, because the intent of hate-crimes bills are politics, not justice.

Anyone who keeps an ear to the toilet to follow what the wingnuts talk about, knows that they EQUATE the Jesse Dirkheising case with the Matthew Shepard case. This despite the obvious differences in motive and circumstances.

The most interracial crimes of violence are latino on black and black on latino. Will latinos be white for the purpose of prosecution and then minority as victim? That's the kind of crazy this is going to lead to amongst normal thinking people. Where the right wingers go with this is going to be beyond the imagination of normal thinking people. They are going to demand that everything be handled as a hate crime so that they can bog down the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. Your entire post presumes that the law targets "majority against minority" crimes.
It doesn't. Anti-white, anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-gay, anti-straight crimes all work the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. They do, but that isn't the point. The point is that it's bad law.
It is perfectly legal to yell epithets at someone on the street, as it should be. So if the law "enhances" a crime because someone is yelling an epithet while committing a crime, then the law is punishing speech. It's that simple. The whole "a hate crime is one that is committed to send a message to a community, etc.... " is just an excuse to pass laws which some well intended people believe will intimidate society into a conforming view. That's bad law, and it's unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. It isn't either of the things you say.
So if the law "enhances" a crime because someone is yelling an epithet while committing a crime


This is not what the law does. The law makes it a crime to attack someone because of bias. The case you mentioned just happens to be a pretty obvious one in which the motivation is clear.

The whole "a hate crime is one that is committed to send a message to a community, etc.... "


Straw man. The hate crime harms the entire society by its own commission, independent of any "message" intended to be sent.

just an excuse to pass laws which some well intended people believe will intimidate society into a conforming view.


We need legislation and federal action to control behavior. It may be true that the law can't make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also.

-MLK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Not exactly a prophecy there.
We need legislation and federal action to control behavior. It may be true that the law can't make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also.

-MLK


Lynching was already a crime when he said that. The confusion when it comes to lynching is that the term is used to refer to the execution of the innocent, to the execution of the guilty, and the execution of those who haven't been tried. The type of lynching King referred to was illegal in his own time. Given that the act was already against the law, then clearly the law didn't prevent it from taking place. Makes a nice quote though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. That's a ridiculous argument. The law punishes intent.
Can shouting epithets while attacking someone be an indicator of intent? Of course it is. But the epithets are not in themselves an element of the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. So if a Klansman clubs you, but takes your wallet, has a hate crime been committed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. Maybe. What was his motive? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. You're black, and he's not talking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Depends on the evidence, then. His mere being a Klansman is not enough. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #52
85. Regarding conservative allegations of media bias in covering Dirkhising/Shepard
Edited on Sun Oct-25-09 01:40 AM by alp227
Anyone who keeps an ear to the toilet to follow what the wingnuts talk about, knows that they EQUATE the Jesse Dirkheising case with the Matthew Shepard case. This despite the obvious differences in motive and circumstances.


I read about this on Terry Krepel's ConWebWatch website, see his 2002 article "Accusations of Media Bias in the Jesse Dirkhising Case" disproving conservative mythology that Dirkhising and Shepard cases were equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
44. I disagree with this also.
It covers sexual orientation, if somebody is targeted specifically because they're straight, it could be covered under this hate crimes legislation.

I disagree with this, also. What the hell does sexual orientation have to do with worth as a human being, or in determining punishment for killing one?

Where does this line of reasoning stop? What human trait will we next identify as being deserving of extra punishment if you kill someone who has it?

I don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
73. It has nothing to do with a person's worth.
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 02:16 PM by DireStrike
It is about protecting the right to be black, gay, straight, catholic, a gamer, an emo kid, a cat lady.... and not be killed for it.

Ideally it would not stop anywhere. Any crime motivated by the characteristics of the victim should be punished more harshly. Society has an interest in allowing people to be who they are without being attacked for it. This is over and above its interest in dealing with crimes committed for financial gain, personal vendettas, or any other reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Prosecute people for the crime they have committed, and that sends the message ...
.... that you can't get away with a crime simply because the victim is a member of some group you despise. That's sufficient. That was the issue, was that criminals were getting off by saying "It was only a queer." or "He came on to me."

So if a hate crime bill were to be truly correct in construct, it would simply read that no crime shall be lesser prosecuted or lesser punished due to the status of the victim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
58. It's incredibly annoying to see this lack of logic on a progressive site.
The bill doesn't mandate a stiffer penalty if the victim is gay. It only takes effect if the victim was singled out because he was gay. When someone is singled out for harm because of their orientation, race, etc., that not only hurts the victim, it is also a threat to those from the same group as the victim. By definition, it is a terroristic act against that group of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
79. Disagreeing with you is not necessarily a lack of logic.
The whole bias crime justification is back and fill "logic" to make a category of crime sound reasonable which would otherwise offend a civil libertarian's senses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. I never said it was.
And the poster was using a BS right-wing frame for the issue, anyway. He not only misrepresented what hate-crime laws constitute, he did it out of ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
69. No certain group of people is set aside for protection.
I keep typing things but they are so obvious, I am shocked that I have to explain them to a thinking human being. I guess I will leave this argument to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. Any link to who voted no? I can't find one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. here is a link courtesy NYT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #39
53. Thank you alp227
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. I should've included "Steel" or "Numbskull"
sigh...i fail at parodies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Nice to see the Senate doing something right. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. Senate passes gay hate-crimes bill
Source: Baltimore Sun

James Oliphant Washington bureau

WASHINGTON - A bill to make violence against gays and lesbians a federal crime cleared the Senate Thursday and is headed to the White House for final approval.

The 68-29 vote was a victory for civil rights groups that have been fighting for years to expand the federal hate-crimes law beyond attacks motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color. The new bill, which President Obama is expected to sign, includes penalties for assaults based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity.

Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department would be charged with enforcing the new provisions, praised the bill's passage.

"There have been nearly 80,000 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI since I first testified before Congress in support of a hate crimes bill 11 years ago," Holder said. He said recent incidents such as the shooting in June of an African-American security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum by a white supremacist "demonstrate that there are still those for whom prejudice can translate into violence."



Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-dc-hatecrimes,0,2906605.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. "Disgusting! They just endorsed the homosexual lifestyle!"
THAT is what we will be hearing from all of the fundamentalist wackjob groups and preachers out there, any minute now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. ...
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. The only sad thing is that some people actually voted no
Edited on Thu Oct-22-09 08:32 PM by Thrill
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. I'm gay and I oppose most hate crimes laws.
My only concern , throughout the history of the last 30 years, has been that cases of violence against gay people be EQUALLY prosecuted , PROPERLY prosecuted, and FAIRLY judged. My concern has been that people who attack or kill gay people shouldn't walk due to a "gay panic defense" or similar construct. So I would support being able to bring in federal oversight to ensure that a case is properly tried, or kicking it into a more accountable court, but bringing enhanced punishment is a no with me. Trying to use the law to send a social message other than the message of the law itself, is a no with me.

I would be thrilled if people who attack, maim, or kill gay people went to jail for the correct amount of time, nothing more, nothing less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
47. Me too.
I would be thrilled if people who attack, maim, or kill gay people went to jail for the correct amount of time, nothing more, nothing less.

This is precisely my sentiment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Very good news. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. It's so amazing to see this day finally come
I hope this is the first of many things coming down the pike to expand civil rights for more Americans. Next, do away with DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
36. Most excellent news
I can hear the freepers heads exploding over this... and it makes me smile :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
37. "And Disabillity" YAY!!!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
41. Good, I wish they were universal....
All victims should be protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buffalowings Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
42. Plastic Irony


I find any 'hate crime' bill attached to a military spending bill ironic.

Prosecution of hate crime by the federal government? Get out your plastic charge cards.

Happy Daze.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
54. Excellent.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
60. Loooooooong over due. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
62. Ten years late, but it's something, right?
Good for the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
84. k&r late
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC