Hate Crimes Bill Protecting Sexual Orientation Finally Gonna Pass

[HazelGod]

Whats ur real opinion?

That you're far too ignorant to be speaking so much.

 

[Beachboy19]

That you're far too ignorant to be speaking so much.

Or maybe u are far too homophobic. And that question wasnt addressed at you.

 

[Pendlum]

Well, einstein, they dont have thought reading machines. You need to *do something* (such as yelling homophobic slurs) to qualify for hate crimes. So that would be the extra action component (in addition to beating) just like planning is for premediated murder (in addition to killing).

Whats ur real opinion?

Character witnesses can lie, saying I hate gay people, and if the jury believes them, I get an extra 10 years for what I may have thought. Why would they lie? They could have something against me, or they could truly believe that I hate gay people. The point is, there is the chance that I may get punished for what they can convince a jury I am thinking, even if I didn't yell die fag or something obscene.

My real opinion is somewhere along the lines of it is a small step in the wrong direction, but is actually intended for the greater good. I personally think that someone who beats up someone because they are gay are truly awful people, more so than someone who just picked a bar fight. But I also know that I am not the law in anyway, and my emotions have no bearing on it, and shouldn't. It is a noble idea, but it may be used as a reasoning for other less noble laws. I doubt this will happen, and I believe in the end it will probably have a positive effect. But I'm not going to dismiss the idea that someone may try to use it in an evil way.

 

[Beachboy19]

Character witnesses can lie, saying I hate gay people, and if the jury believes them, I get an extra 10 years for what I may have thought. Why would they lie? They could have something against me, or they could truly believe that I hate gay people. The point is, there is the chance that I may get punished for what they can convince a jury I am thinking, even if I didn't yell die fag or something obscene.

My real opinion is somewhere along the lines of it is a small step in the wrong direction, but is actually intended for the greater good. I personally think that someone who beats up someone because they are gay are truly awful people, more so than someone who just picked a bar fight. But I also know that I am not the law in anyway, and my emotions have no bearing on it, and shouldn't. It is a noble idea, but it may be used as a reasoning for other less noble laws. I doubt this will happen, and I believe in the end it will probably have a positive effect. But I'm not going to dismiss the idea that someone may try to use it in an evil way.

Whatever. Witnesses may lie and u may get murder instead of manslaughter.

 

[Pendlum]

Whatever. Witnesses may lie and u may get murder instead of manslaughter.

That doesn't make hate crime legislation any more valid.

 

[Beachboy19]

That doesn't make hate crime legislation any more valid.

Have you played "devil's advocate" about a debate about manslaughter vs murder?

 

[Pendlum]

I've never seen a debate for that, so no. But my point was you can't use situation A to justify situation C when they aren't the same.

 

[Beachboy19]

I've never seen a debate for that, so no.

Would u?

 

[Pendlum]

Sure, why not. It's always interesting to try and get all the angles. And in the long run it, in my opinion, makes you a smarter person. Now it would be hard to do it, if not impossible, in a way that I would perceive the point I'm arguing as being even close to rational, but that shouldn't matter usually.

 

[HazelGod]

Or maybe u are far too homophobic. And that question wasnt addressed at you.

Really? Thanks, Captain Obvious...

You've just downgraded yourself from ignorant blowhard to knee-jerk reactionary moron. Here's your sign.

 

[StormfrontFL]

That is a bad example. The first one, she would get off with self defense, and even if she were convicted, her sentence would be less than the second one because she planned to kill her husband, she waited for him. Motive would only make it easier to convict her, not increase her sentence. She would get the same sentence as any other woman who planned to kill their husband, regardless of reason. 1st-3rd degrees of murder aren't determined with thoughts, but actions. Planning the crime, how the victim was killed, was there torture, things like that (at least that's my understanding of it).

My point is that some other posters on this thread keep making the argument that all killings should be judged the same regardless of the motive or intent of the perpetrator. My example was meant to show the unfairness of such a plan.Not all killings are the same just as all thefts aren't. A single sentence for a crime regardless of the circumstances is not right. Would you sentence someone who stole an apple to the same punishment as someone who stole a couple of hundred dollars? Both people committed theft.

 

[StormfrontFL]

That is a bad example. The first one, she would get off with self defense, and even if she were convicted, her sentence would be less than the second one because she planned to kill her husband, she waited for him. Motive would only make it easier to convict her, not increase her sentence. She would get the same sentence as any other woman who planned to kill their husband, regardless of reason. 1st-3rd degrees of murder aren't determined with thoughts, but actions. Planning the crime, how the victim was killed, was there torture, things like that (at least that's my understanding of it).

Your last sentence actually supports my argument. Planning to kill someone based on a particular trait is not the same as killing someone because you walked in on her in bed with your husband. One is premeditated and the other is unplanned. Intent is a factor.

 

[Pendlum]

My point is that some other posters on this thread keep making the argument that all killings should be judged the same regardless of the motive or intent of the perpetrator. My example was meant to show the unfairness of such a plan.Not all killings are the same just as all thefts aren't. A single sentence for a crime regardless of the circumstances is not right. Would you sentence someone who stole an apple to the same punishment as someone who stole a couple of hundred dollars? Both people committed theft.

They aren't saying that the circumstances shouldn't matter. They are saying that the why shouldn't be a circumstance used to increase sentencing. The difference between your new theft one is in situation A, an apple is gone, while situation B, a few hundred dollars are gone. But for situation C, a guy killed a person, and D, a guy killed a person because they are gay, both situations end with a dead person. A and B have different outcomes for the victim.

 

[Pendlum]

Your last sentence actually supports my argument. Planning to kill someone based on a particular trait is not the same as killing someone because you walked in on her in bed with your husband. One is premeditated and the other is unplanned. Intent is a factor.

Killing someone because they are gay/black/etc and planning to kill someone are different.

 

[StormfrontFL]

This is precisely what I meant when I said that people here have no real understanding of our criminal justice system.

As MF has explained to you numerous times, degree of offense is a concept distinct and apart from what you're talking about. I'm not going to waste my pearls rehashing it again.

Suffice it to say, I've still seen nothing here to convince me that arguably circumventing the 14th Amendment and giving the federal government the power to usurp the right of states to prosecute offenses according to their own laws predicated purely on some "real or perceived" demographic bias against the victim is in the best interest of the general citizenry.

Degree of offense is what this helps to determine. A gay basher could be charged with manslaughter if he claims that he never intended to kill but was defending himself(gay panic because gay man made pass at him). But if it's revealed that just prior to the assault the perpetrator was heard saying that he wanted to kill the next fag he sees and had been out looking for someone to beat then his chance of receiving that lesser charge is gone. MF has been stating ad nauseum that all murders should be treated the same but they can't because of mitigating circumstances.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Killing someone because they are gay/black/etc and planning to kill someone are different.

Certain posters on this thread believe they are the same. If I wanted to kill you because you stood in the way of me winning 10 million dollars it isn't the same as me killing you because you are the first white face I see and I wanted to kill a white person. In both scenarios I planned to kill. In one you were the specific target because killing anyone else wouldn't get me the money. In the other scenario you were just a random person. It could have been anyone else. It wouldn't have affected my plan as long as the person was white.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Your last sentence actually supports my argument. Planning to kill someone based on a particular trait is not the same as killing someone because you walked in on her in bed with your husband. One is premeditated and the other is unplanned. Intent is a factor.

Not only that, but as I stated before a Hate Crime is not a "crime of passion". To suggest that would be the equivalent of temporary insanity. However, most people who gay bash or attack another person based on skin color or religious beliefs have festered ill-minded beliefs about a person's characteristics for some time. Nobody decides in the spur of the moment that they hate gay people, or white people, or black people, or Muslims, etc...

Also, intent to do harm to someone based on their skin color, religious beliefs or sexual preference has to be proven just like anything else in a court of law. It's not simply, "Oh, a witness heard you say 'I hate homos' while you were killing your wife. That's a hate crime, therefore an extra 10 years to your sentence." That's not enough.

And dare I say it? IMO, I think some of the opposition towards Hate Crime Legislation really generates from people who don't think the laws protect them even though they actually do. A white, heterosexual male can also be a victim of a Hate Crime just as much as a black, latino, Jewish, or whatever. WE'RE ALL PROTECTED. However, we don't notice a lot of gay people being brought up on charges for "straight bashing", now do we? Not many stories of lost heterosexuals randomly wandering into Fire Island or Provincetown and being confronted by a crowd of gays & lesbians who proceed to beat them because of their sexual preference screaming, "We hate breeders". How about a straight guy accidently walking into a gay bar, befriending a few men there in an attempt to get home, then find themselves beaten and left to die while tied to a fence? Some drunk lesbians walking down Times Square, seeing a married couple and get mad that the woman is with her husband, then proceed to beat up on him because they want to have sex with her? I think it's safe to say there's a VERY good chance that none of these scenarios will play out on a regular basis.

 

[mitchymo]

Two points to make.

Firstly and less importantly, when a crime is committed, opportunity, means and motive are all used to proove guilt, but only motive is used after guilt has been established for the purposes of sentencing. The actual laws which state the penalties for any given crime are not absolute. It is up to the judge to decide the appropriate sentencing and as i have said many times already, any hope for equality within the judicial system is subject to pot luck that you don't end up with a racist or homophobic judge trialing the case of your attacker, victims murderer etc and allowing leniency due to bias to usurp the process of justice, and while hate crime laws do not exist within the constitution then there is no equal protection for minority groups unless you can be certain that ALL crimes motivated by simple hatred are prosecuted to the same severity as any other equal crime. All that can be done right now is ask questions as to why gay joe's murderer got sentenced to 5 years less than straight bob's if both crimes were carried out on grounds of hate. Could the judge be bias? What can we do about it? Nothing because you would then have to proove the judge is persecuting a minority group by abusing his position. Whilst there is no reason that the judge cannot be investigated for such belief it does nothing to correct the injustice already done.
Having hate crime won't necessarily stop the injustice but what it will do is make it harder to abuse the system and easier to proove another person's guilt of racism or homophobia.

Secondly, amendment 14, citizens rights, states that everybody is entitled to equal protection, it does not however say that everybody is entitled to equal rights.
Hate crime law being enforced across the nation rather than being left to local states to do the right thing (which some already have) is to the benefit of minority groups which do not yet have equal rights. How would it be worded in a 28th ammendment without upsetting a mass of the country. You cannot offer equal rights to gay people entirely because plenty of people are against gay marriage, adoption etc etc so the next best thing to further equality is to enforce a universal policy that specifically includes the gay community.

Now do you want a 28th amendment which states that it is wrong to prejudice against gay people? No you don't! Why? because that REALLY would be a step towards prosecuting on the basis of personal opinion.

Hate crime legislation protective of all, more so minorities, is likely to the biggest benefit of the gay community because it furthers equality. And if you should be homophobic you should at least see the compromise in that it does not open the door wide to the fundamental issues of marriage, adoption etc etc.

You surely must respect that you have a fantastic system in place that allows one state to be different from the next but recognise that you are nonetheless one country and obviously it has been deemed appropriate that on this issue at least, the whole nation should be enforcing the same legislation.

 

[StormfrontFL]

They aren't saying that the circumstances shouldn't matter. They are saying that the why shouldn't be a circumstance used to increase sentencing. The difference between your new theft one is in situation A, an apple is gone, while situation B, a few hundred dollars are gone. But for situation C, a guy killed a person, and D, a guy killed a person because they are gay, both situations end with a dead person. A and B have different outcomes for the victim.

But they are stating that circumstances shouldn't matter. As Fuzzyken stated there are still places where the "good ole boy" network still downplays crimes against minorities. This legislation allows for that "system" to be circumvented. If this had been in place in the 50s and 60s a lot of those who got away with lynching blacks in the South would have had to spend the rest of their lives in jail. There are some on here who don't want to accept that this sort of thing still happens today but sadly, it does.

It also seems that most of those arguing against this are white and heterosexual. It's easier to see the injustices that go on if you are someone who has to live with it every day. To look at me you couldn't tell I'm gay but you can sure see that I'm black. There have been posters on here who pretty much said that gays should shut up and get back in the closet if we don't want trouble. How would they handle it if the shoe were on the other foot and they had to experience being treated as something less than human? To be a member of the race that has not had to experience the hardships of this country's racial inequality and to lecture others about unfairness is laughable at best. There are a few who seem to have a bit of empathy for the problems surrounding racial prejudices and some are understanding when it comes to sexuality but there are others who seem to want the old days to come back. The days when blacks and gays hid out or kept very low profiles. How would these individuals react if they woke up tomorrow and suddenly being hetero was considered an unusual lifestyle and they were fearful of losing their jobs because their bosses were heterophobes? Would Kingdongilingus feel safe walking down the street holding his girlfriend's hand or would he be nervous wondering if, or when, someone might yell obscenities at them or threaten them physically? In the movie "Soul Man", C. Thomas Howell's character was a white man chemically altered to appear black. After his charade was exposed his professor, played by James Earl Jones, said that he had received a lesson that everyone studying law should get to experience. He said that Howell's character had learned what it felt like to be black. Howell told him that he didn't really experience it because in reality if he didn't like what he was going through he could stop and be white again. Simply put, unless you are one of the persecuted you can't truly understand what it's like to be persecuted.

 

[HazelGod]

Two points to make.

Ah, the erudite pontifications of the English upon the mechanics of the US Constitution and criminal justice system... :lmao: