Happy Atheist Forum

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capito ... es_me.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/senate_approves_hate_crimes_me.html)

So a bill was passed to protect LGBTs from hate crime, personally I think this is a great thing, a mark of some progress, thoughts?

your link doesn't work

fixed, sorry about that.

I've always thought the label "hate crime" was unnecessary.  Why add the extra label to define the perps motives?  
I don't really care why some sick bastard hurts people or damages property.

I'm quoting someone else from another forum as they explain it better and i'm lazy so:

Quote from: HyudraAs a hate crime is a crime committed with the intent of specifically harming a member of a particular group, I think the idea is that someone who commits such a crime is going to be of a mindset where they're far less likely to repent, change their ways or abstain from further such crimes.

If I went out and beat a hispanic person within an inch of her life because, gosh, [ooc=I really hate hispanics]Hypothetical[/ooc], I'm quite likely to be of a personality & attitude where I'm going to repeat-offend and pose further danger to hispanics.  Because of my prejudice, I'm likely to dehumanize and objectify those individuals I hate.  I'll use hate speech that devalues said individual as a person, often using animals or objects to refer to them.  

This dehumanizing is important because it means I'm going to inflict more harm/humiliation on said individual when engaging in the assault (or vandalism, whatever).  If I don't/can't see someone as human, then I don't empathize with my victim and I feel less need to hold back.  In the shoes of hypothetical Hyudra-as-a-bigot, I"m stopped only by my self preservation rather than any consideration for the nonhuman I feel I'm attacking.

A hate crime is, by it's nature, a more severe crime.  It implies a different kind of offender from which a segment of the public needs more protection (in the form of said individual being behind bars for longer), and who needs a harsher penalty looming over their head because consideration for the victim is that much less of a factor.

And yeah, the fact that the law recognizes a minority as a group with rights and protections under the law means a lot unto itself.  It's that much harder for bigoted judges to downplay the sentencing of a hate crime.

House version of the bill. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110mj90or::)

Senate version of the bill. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1105:)

Actually, I can understand some of the objections that have been raised to this bill.  I can just hear our right wing compatriots howling about the 'nanny state' telling us, "Play nice, or else..."  I object generally to legislation of personal behavior, but when it comes to protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, sometimes legislation is the only reasonable way. It's an unfortunate reality that in large sections of the US there is still apparently the need for a law like this.  The LGBT community does have to deal with violent reactions to their very existence.  So while in principle I'm reluctant to agree to the government telling the populace what to do, I'm in favor of this law.  Cretinous thugs who attack people merely because of their sexual orientation should be given harsher sentences than say, garden variety bar-fighting blockheads.

 

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Why add the extra label to define the perps motives?
I don't really care why some sick bastard hurts people or damages property.

Extra label=extra punishment.  The idea (as you no doubt are aware) is to provide protection to persecuted groups by acknowledging the fact that attacks on them are often motivated simply by prejudice.  In an attempt to curb attacks based on this prejudice, an additional punitive measure is enacted.  Of course, as with most other laws enacted by the government, there will be abuses of such legislation.  What if one of the bar-fighting blockheads I mentioned above happens to be gay?  Should the other blockheads he was fighting with be given extra punishment because of that fact?  Obviously not, but it's quite possible they will be at least accused of "hate crime."  A regrettable side effect of the legislation of behavior.  Still, I think that it's part of the duty of government to try to give protection to persecuted groups.

It's a shame this wasn't in place in time for Matt Shepherd. And it's a shame it had to be attached to a bill supporting a horrible and unnecessary war.

Still, I'm glad homosexuals are getting equal protection to everyone else when it comes to bigotry-related crimes (I don't like the term "hate crime").

I'm split on this bill.  There are a few things to balance and i'm not sure where exactly I fall. (i'm too lazy to read the actual bills Recusant but TY because they might become a good reference source.

On the one hand its nice that there is a push for equal rights for everyone.  Although this bill by itself doesn't give LGBT equal rights it is a good place to get momentum.

On another hand I don't agree with an actual hate crime.  Adding an additional sentence for a hate crime is not a deterrent.  No one who is already looking for a fight with someone who is gay will stop and say, "oh it's now a hate crime I better not".  It also serves in no way to help fight racism or discrimination.  The money being funneled into this and the eventual dollars from extended prison sentences should go to education.  I always say education has a higher ROI (return on investment) then ignorance.

I think that this bill is shifting focus from equal rights, a distraction, to keep the masses happy.  We should be intelligent enough to see that treating other humans poorly for being different is appalling.  If our elected officials cannot see that or ignore it then they should simply be forced to resign.  There will be a time in our future that generations of humans look back at us and realize that we are just as barbaric and uncivilized as the bronze age people, we just have cooler things.

Thinking about it now I find there is more I don't like about this then like.  Am I missing something here?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I'm split on this bill.  There are a few things to balance and i'm not sure where exactly I fall. (i'm too lazy to read the actual bills Recusant but TY because they might become a good reference source.

On the one hand its nice that there is a push for equal rights for everyone.  Although this bill by itself doesn't give LGBT equal rights it is a good place to get momentum.

On another hand I don't agree with an actual hate crime.  Adding an additional sentence for a hate crime is not a deterrent.  No one who is already looking for a fight with someone who is gay will stop and say, "oh it's now a hate crime I better not".  It also serves in no way to help fight racism or discrimination.  The money being funneled into this and the eventual dollars from extended prison sentences should go to education.  I always say education has a higher ROI (return on investment) then ignorance.

I think that this bill is shifting focus from equal rights, a distraction, to keep the masses happy.  We should be intelligent enough to see that treating other humans poorly for being different is appalling.  If our elected officials cannot see that or ignore it then they should simply be forced to resign.  There will be a time in our future that generations of humans look back at us and realize that we are just as barbaric and uncivilized as the bronze age people, we just have cooler things.

Thinking about it now I find there is more I don't like about this then like.  Am I missing something here?

I think its more along the lines of reinforcing social standards.  The standard says don't hurt people so laws are created to try to protect, give recourse to those that are hurt.  The standard says you shouldn't hurt people but you ESPECIALLY shouldn't hurt people for no other reason than skin color, religion, sexuality, profession (within reason.. but we won't get into that just this second) the crime is worse than just hurting somebody at random.  

When a person from a particular group is singled out and hurt or killed specifically because that person is a member of a specific group, the harm goes beyond the victim (and the victim's immediate family/acquaintances) and extends to a whole group of people.  Prostitutes find themselves getting nervous when a serial killer targeting only Prostitutes appears.  People who speak Spanish and are darker skinned than my lilly white self get nervous when Mexican/South American/Spanish/Cuban/etc immigrants start getting beat to death.  

The intent is to not just to say that bigotry based violence is wrong (in the same way that random violence is wrong and punishable) but that the act is more wrong than random violence and should result in a greater punishment.  

Since the intent of a random act of violence is not the same a premeditated act of violence based on membership (real or perceived) of the victim in some subset of the overall population it makes sense to me that there should be two different standards to judge our actions by.  

This type of law does not guarantee equality or fairness all by itself but allows for legal recourse when an individual or group is the victim of a hate crime.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I think its more along the lines of reinforcing social standards.  The standard says don't hurt people so laws are created to try to protect, give recourse to those that are hurt.  The standard says you shouldn't hurt people but you ESPECIALLY shouldn't hurt people for no other reason than skin color, religion, sexuality, profession (within reason.. but we won't get into that just this second) the crime is worse than just hurting somebody at random.  

If the law already exists then why do we need to add a harsher sentence?  All that does is show that this particular group of people are different and need special protection.  That seems to be moving in the opposite direction of equality.  In addition this law isn't a deterrent to stop the crime.  If someone is looking for a fight with someone for a specific reason (no matter how arbitrary) they will find someone to fight with.    

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"When a person from a particular group is singled out and hurt or killed specifically because that person is a member of a specific group, the harm goes beyond the victim (and the victim's immediate family/acquaintances) and extends to a whole group of people.  Prostitutes find themselves getting nervous when a serial killer targeting only Prostitutes appears.  People who speak Spanish and are darker skinned than my lilly white self get nervous when Mexican/South American/Spanish/Cuban/etc immigrants start getting beat to death.  

This has to do with fear.  If you let people control you with fear and intimidation then what is the point of doing anything?  You need to show them that their tactics won't work.  This type of mentality pisses me off because all that these assholes are are domestic terrorists.  If you let them control you with fear then they win, plain and simple.  This pisses me off as much as people after the September 11th hijackings who said, "I'm not going to fly anymore because I don't want my plane hijacked."  If you stand up as a group and say, "No, your tactics will not stop us from living our lives, you are nothing," let these people know that they have no control over you and how you live your life.  

Quote from: "Jolly Snapper"The intent is to not just to say that bigotry based violence is wrong (in the same way that random violence is wrong and punishable) but that the act is more wrong than random violence and should result in a greater punishment.  

So what you are essentially saying is that if some racist bastard found a Mexican, killed him, and got caught that his sentence should be worse then say a stalker who shoots his ex's new lover to death?  So then by this reasoning the stalker should get life since his act was not a "Hate Crime" and the racist should get executed because his crime was a "Hate Crime" right?  Murder is murder and it should all carry the same sentencing.  If someone gets 2 years for assaulting his girlfriend then someone should get 2 years for assaulting a random minority (assuming he was looking for one).

Quote from: "Jolly Snapper"Since the intent of a random act of violence is not the same a premeditated act of violence based on membership (real or perceived) of the victim in some subset of the overall population it makes sense to me that there should be two different standards to judge our actions by.  

Agreed, either a crime is premeditated or it isn't.  A person who beats the hell out of a minority (and planned on it) should be judged the same as a person as a person who beat the hell out of his ex's new boyfriend.  There does not need to be another condition set in place that illustrates someone is different then someone else and thus a crime committed against that person is of a more severe caliber then a crime committed against another person based on an arbitrary qualifier such as skin color or sexual orientation.

Quote from: "Jolly Snapper"This type of law does not guarantee equality or fairness all by itself but allows for legal recourse when an individual or group is the victim of a hate crime.

Again this does the opposite of creating fairness and equality.  It reinforces that the group of people affected by this law are different from normal society which is bullshit.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/senate_approves_hate_crimes_me.html

So a bill was passed to protect LGBTs from hate crime, personally I think this is a great thing, a mark of some progress, thoughts?

Hate crime laws are lame. When you elevate a class of people to a protected status you are saying they are too infantile to be members of society. When you commit a violent crime against anyone else, you are hateful inherently. A man who burns down a project housing is hateful to any life regardless of their protected status.

Violent crimes are inherently hateful. Why make them special? And also, how is hate any more evil when it's applied to a Jew, Black, Gay, or whatever but not to a conservative person like Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, he's an asshole but I bet a lot of people who support this kind of PC shit would have no problem with Rush being hit a bunch.

I personally see this as an attack on free thought. Freedom comes at a price, and that price is uncertainty. You will have people who are bigots and hate others for stupid reasons, and you will have people who overcompensate out of white guilt or whatever. It sucks but it's better than the sterile, Utopian bullshit the government rolls out.

When you make things like Hate Crime bills, racial college funds, black/hispanic/asian/jewish history months, etc. you simply are racist in a different way. Celebrate different cultures but don't put them on some sort of pedestal above others. When we get rid of this stupid PC shit, I think we can actually attain a better society.

You know white males are not an exception to hate crime laws right? If someone pulled a hate crime on Rush that person would be prosecuted rightly so. I'm not even getting into a debate about races receiving funding but a person from the projects isn't going to be able to just pay for college unless they have a very high intellect WITH an excellent education in the first place, the first factor is common but good schooling that you don't have to pay for is more like a unicorn, get over it, for now there are many people, mainly minorities who don't have a good chance let alone equal chance to make it in life, if the money they were receiving was doing such a good job then how come there is an overwhelming amount of minorities still dropping out of highschool and college? I'm black(ish) and I still can barely afford college, minorities aren't getting a fat check from the government every week to pay for college, most still don't go to college so get off your high horse dude.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You know white males are not an exception to hate crime laws right? If someone pulled a hate crime on Rush that person would be prosecuted rightly so. I'm not even getting into a debate about races receiving funding but a person from the projects isn't going to be able to just pay for college unless they have a very high intellect WITH an excellent education in the first place, the first factor is common but good schooling that you don't have to pay for is more like a unicorn, get over it, for now there are many people, mainly minorities who don't have a good chance let alone equal chance to make it in life, if the money they were receiving was doing such a good job then how come there is an overwhelming amount of minorities still dropping out of highschool and college? I'm black(ish) and I still can barely afford college, minorities aren't getting a fat check from the government every week to pay for college, most still don't go to college so get off your high horse dude.

Why so serious?

Quote from: " LoneMateria"If the law already exists then why do we need to add a harsher sentence? All that does is show that this particular group of people are different and need special protection. That seems to be moving in the opposite direction of equality. In addition this law isn't a deterrent to stop the crime. If someone is looking for a fight with someone for a specific reason (no matter how arbitrary) they will find someone to fight with.

I don't think I said anything about a harsher sentence. I don't understand how classifying an act of violence against a group (i e more than one) of people differently than an act against an individual is the same as showing "that this particular group of people are different and need special protection." Most laws aren't a deterrent to stop crime but a means to define a act in a way that can allow a victim to seek recourse or justice.


       

Quote from: " LoneMateria"This has to do with fear. If you let people control you with fear and intimidation then what is the point of doing anything? You need to show them that their tactics won't work. This type of mentality pisses me off because all that these assholes are are domestic terrorists. If you let them control you with fear then they win, plain and simple. This pisses me off as much as people after the September 11th hijackings who said, "I'm not going to fly anymore because I don't want my plane hijacked." If you stand up as a group and say, "No, your tactics will not stop us from living our lives, you are nothing," let these people know that they have no control over you and how you live your life.

Now I agree with the sentiment of this statement. Its a reason why I support Hate Crimes Legislation, by legally separating violence against a group differently from violent acts against an individual a group may better stand up for itself in a court of law.

     

Quote from: " LoneMateria"So what you are essentially saying is that if some racist bastard found a Mexican, killed him, and got caught that his sentence should be worse then say a stalker who shoots his ex's new lover to death? So then by this reasoning the stalker should get life since his act was not a "Hate Crime" and the racist should get executed because his crime was a "Hate Crime" right? Murder is murder and it should all carry the same sentencing. If someone gets 2 years for assaulting his girlfriend then someone should get 2 years for assaulting a random minority (assuming he was looking for one).

I'm not necessarily saying that the sentence should be worse, but that the crime is different.

    Example:
    Three ways to kill somebody

    1) my car jumps a curb while I'm driving and a pedestrian is hit. The pedestrian dies.

    2)I'm out drinking and I try to drive home, my car jumps a curb while I'm driving and a pedestrian is hit. The pedestrian dies.

    3)I see somebody with a "God Hates Fags" sign and I drive my car over a curb and hit the sign holder. The sign holder dies.

    All these actions wound up killing somebody, but each act is different. Should I be executed if I accidentally lose control of my car and kill someone? Is accidentally killing somebody the same as intentionally killing somebody or willfully putting myself in a state where my actions are more likely to wind up killing somebody? Should the punishments be the same? Should our rule of law treat each situation the same?

    Personally I think not.


           

Quote from: " LoneMateria"Agreed, either a crime is premeditated or it isn't. A person who beats the hell out of a minority (and planned on it) should be judged the same as a person as a person who beat the hell out of his ex's new boyfriend. There does not need to be another condition set in place that illustrates someone is different then someone else and thus a crime committed against that person is of a more severe caliber then a crime committed against another person based on an arbitrary qualifier such as skin color or sexual orientation.

But when a man beats his ex's new boyfriend, he's only beating that one man. He isn't beating everybody's ex's new boyfriends when that man beats the boyfriend of his ex. When a man hangs another man from a tree for no other reason than his skin color or sexual orientation or religion or beliefs or for speaking a different language the message is different. If the man is willing to kill another for any one of those reasons he's willing to kill others for the same reasons. So in my opinion, the two crimes are different and should be classified differently, treated differently, and if need be punished differently.

         

Quote from: " LoneMateria"

Quote from:  " Jolly Sapper"This type of law does not guarantee equality or fairness all by itself but allows for legal recourse when an individual or group is the victim of a hate crime.



     

Quote from: " LoneMateria"Again this does the opposite of creating fairness and equality. It reinforces that the group of people affected by this law are different from normal society which is bullshit.

I'm less concerned about fairness and equality and more concerned that people who are wronged have legal recourse to seek justice. Where you think that these laws single out groups of victims for special treatment, I prefer to think of it as singling out groups of criminals who should be treated differently due to the different nature of their crimes. Which I don't, by the way, think is bullshit.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You know white males are not an exception to hate crime laws right? If someone pulled a hate crime on Rush that person would be prosecuted rightly so. I'm not even getting into a debate about races receiving funding but a person from the projects isn't going to be able to just pay for college unless they have a very high intellect WITH an excellent education in the first place, the first factor is common but good schooling that you don't have to pay for is more like a unicorn, get over it, for now there are many people, mainly minorities who don't have a good chance let alone equal chance to make it in life, if the money they were receiving was doing such a good job then how come there is an overwhelming amount of minorities still dropping out of highschool and college? I'm black(ish) and I still can barely afford college, minorities aren't getting a fat check from the government every week to pay for college, most still don't go to college so get off your high horse dude.

Why so serious?

because it's a serious issue, not a football game.

Lol last time I did this I went into foamy (http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html)rant mode.  I'm gonna try not to do that this time.  ... Let's begin.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I don't think I said anything about a harsher sentence. I don't understand how classifying an act of violence against a group (i e more than one) of people differently than an act against an individual is the same as showing "that this particular group of people are different and need special protection." Most laws aren't a deterrent to stop crime but a means to define a act in a way that can allow a victim to seek recourse or justice.

A harsher sentence is what this is about.  When a crime becomes labeled a "hate crime" a longer/harsher sentence is given.  I'm not saying that a group is the same as an individual.  I'm saying that if the individual happens to be part of a group (example: a man is attacked who happens to be black and his assailant happens to be white) he should not receive a different sentence then a white man attack another white man.  A pre-meditated crime should get the same sentence all over the board.  What is the difference between a man who is prowling the streets looking to beat the hell out of a woman and a man who is prowling the streets looking to beat the hell out of a latino?  Who will get the harsher sentence for essentially the same crime?  That is injustice if one gets a worse sentence over another.

 

Quote from: "Jolly Snapper"Now I agree with the sentiment of this statement. Its a reason why I support Hate Crimes Legislation, by legally separating violence against a group differently from violent acts against an individual a group may better stand up for itself in a court of law.

You seem to be switching categories on me.  I never said that someone who commits a crime against a group of people should be judged the same as an individual person.  When a black man commits a crime against say a mexican for being mexican (for example) he is not attacking that group he is attacking that individual for just being part of the group.  The group can take offense all they want but his crime isn't against them it is against the individual he attacked.  His crime should be the same as if an Alabama fan attacked an Auburn fan.  That is justice ... punishing people equally for the same crime.  Punishing 2 people differently for the same crime is injustice... whats the difference between punishing someone harder for attacking someone who is black and punishing someone harder for being black?


     

Quote from: "Jolly Snaper"I'm not necessarily saying that the sentence should be worse, but that the crime is different.

    Example:
    Three ways to kill somebody

    1) my car jumps a curb while I'm driving and a pedestrian is hit. The pedestrian dies.

    2)I'm out drinking and I try to drive home, my car jumps a curb while I'm driving and a pedestrian is hit. The pedestrian dies.

    3)I see somebody with a "God Hates Fags" sign and I drive my car over a curb and hit the sign holder. The sign holder dies.

    All these actions wound up killing somebody, but each act is different. Should I be executed if I accidentally lose control of my car and kill someone? Is accidentally killing somebody the same as intentionally killing somebody or willfully putting myself in a state where my actions are more likely to wind up killing somebody? Should the punishments be the same? Should our rule of law treat each situation the same?

    Personally I think not.

You've just explained why the 10 commandments aren't a foundation for our law system .  However in this discussion you are trying to change categories on me again.  To steal your example i'm saying that

1) I see a pedestrian and I decide to run them over because i'm psycho.
2) I see a pedestrian and decide to run them over because they are black and i'm a psycho.

That these are essentially the same crime.  Both premeditated and they both end in tragedy for the families of those involved.  If number 1 gets 20 years number 2 should get 20 instead of 25 or more.  Is the extra sentence for the qualifier, "because he was black" really justice?  If yes please explain why.

           

Quote from: "Jolly Snapper"But when a man beats his ex's new boyfriend, he's only beating that one man. He isn't beating everybody's ex's new boyfriends when that man beats the boyfriend of his ex. When a man hangs another man from a tree for no other reason than his skin color or sexual orientation or religion or beliefs or for speaking a different language the message is different. If the man is willing to kill another for any one of those reasons he's willing to kill others for the same reasons. So in my opinion, the two crimes are different and should be classified differently, treated differently, and if need be punished differently.

I'm getting annoyed with you switching degrees and categories on me to justify your side.  The 2 crimes you are putting there are different because one person is beating another person and the other is killing another person.  Say they both get hung from a tree is the crime different?  If you say yes please explain.

Quote from: " Jolly Snapper"I'm less concerned about fairness and equality and more concerned that people who are wronged have legal recourse to seek justice. Where you think that these laws single out groups of victims for special treatment, I prefer to think of it as singling out groups of criminals who should be treated differently due to the different nature of their crimes. Which I don't, by the way, think is bullshit.

Have you been paying any attention to what i'm saying?  Let me sum it up for you.... SAME CRIME = SAME PUNISHMENT.  When did this conversation change to minorities don't have  legal rights?  I sure as hell haven't said that.  Everyone need to have the SAME legal repercussions for committing the same crime ... and adding on years because the victim is latino or black or white is not justice.  It is divisive and racist.  It creates a us vs them mentality which is reinforced when someone is convicted of a "hate crime".  People are people and some people hate others for something arbitrary thats how some people are.  Some of those people who hate others commit crimes against them and should be judged the same as someone who commits the same crime against someone of the same race(or whatever arbitrary measure is used).  Because we are all people and we are not different then each other because of skin tone or sexual orientation.

Also i can't figure out what you are saying in your last sentence.  What are you saying is bullshit?

...

Quote from: "Big Mac"Feh, life is a game. Might as well kick people's feet from under you before they do it to you.

Or maybe set an example of not being a douche for our descendants so there will be less of them around in the future.