Hidden agenda Hate crime legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.
My 2 cents. Any law which elevates the rights on one group over another is in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, on whose principles the Constitution rests. Period. End of story.

Murder is a State crime. These laws serve merely to erode the powers of the State (and the People) in favor of the Federal arm. Federal law should apply only when there are gaps in the State laws. Last I looked, all of the proposed "hate crimes" are covered by each of the 50 states.
Rich
 
I'll still stand behind my "more equal than others" statement. However, someone mentioned gay marriage, and that's an issue I can relate to. A close friend lost his partner of more than 20 years. They were husband and wife in just about every sense except Biblical. But, after the partner's death, none of his social security was available to my friend, nor his pension. Nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a commonlaw marriage between a man and a woman would allow certain benefits to be passed on to the survivor. I don't see why gays shouldn't be eligible for those rights as well.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
I'm ok with such laws being on the local level and not at the Federal level. No problem.

I still think that this is not a differential rights issue but simply stating that a particular motivational state makes the act more heinous and destructive to society.

But to each his or her own.

Look at it from the side of a victim. You have to worry ahout crime from people that will attack you for the usual criminal motivations and you also have to worry about attack on purely racial/ethnic grounds.

The groups that are not targeted for such
attacks (or with very low probability) may not understand this.

I've been there and almost had to intervene on another one.

Such laws will not hurt the RKBA or push some agenda to change your sexual orientation.
 
Glenn-
Find yourself broken down on the US/Mex border or in most inner city ghettos or, given your last name, in certain areas of the deep south....you'd have to admit that there's a good chance of your being attacked on racial grounds.

Should this afford you special status if brutalized? (I think not....crime is crime.) In any case, as I read the legislation, an attack against you would gain no special recognition....you don't happen to belong to a "special protection" group.

Similarly, we have the case of rape crimes against women....these constitute, IMHO, the epitome of "hate crimes". Hate instilled from early childhood; irrational rage; control issues, etc.

It would make more sense to classify a "hate crime" on the circumstance rather than broadbrushing entire groups as "special". But that argument would lead to the connclusion that crime is crime and motivation is not the operative issue....the crime is.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 26, 2000).]
 
How about this as a reasonable compromise?

An educational program that emphasizes to those considering attacking someone on racial grounds that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That existing laws will be used to come after you.

That certainly hasn't been the case in the past.

It is also the case that some law enforcement hasn't paid particular attention to hate crimes. Vandalism or a beating against a gay might well be ignored by the police. I know enough gays to know that they have a hard time getting law enforcement response.


I also think the rape analogy is not a similar instance as the motivational state is not the same.

So the laws might be a response to society's tacit approval of the terrorizing of minorities. How would you stop it?

Would an educational program against crime aimed at target groups but emphasizing existing statutes be giving privileges to the targeted groups? Would telling LEOs that they cannot sluff off such complaints be giving preference to them?

The drive for such laws came about because of the reality of the problem. What is another solution that doesn't say to the victims to tough out the status quo?

We may differ philosophically but I have no problem adding an penalty for such crimes to existing ones as the hate crime reaches out to a class of people to terrorize them.

I would also be happy to apply the law to minorities who attack majorities if the crime is "hate" motivated.

I want to make a special point about the motivation.
 
Glenn-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the nuance of motivation in crime. The concept of "hate crimes" essentially creates additional sentences for the "wrong" motivation on top of the normal sentence for violence. It would then follow that one might predict a later movement for crimes of "wrong" motivation absent any violence at all...Are these not known as "thought crimes"?

As for the motivation in rape being different from the motivation in racial crime, I couldn't disagree more. Rape isn't about sex...it's about hatred, violence and control. It's about stripping away a person's dignity and replacing it with uncontrollable fear. At it's worst, it attempts to render the victim something less than human. If that ain't a "hate crime", I don't know what is.

Gay beatings may be under investigated in some jurisdictions. But so are beatings of whites who find themselves in a black ghetto. So are beatings against a whole other "class" of citizens known as spouses. Are these victims and all the victims of violent rape not as important as the Gay; the Jew; the Black?

When laws are not properly enforced, it doesn't follow that more laws are the answer....and it certainly doesn't follow that Federalizing the law is the answer. History is replete with examples that refute and, in fact, contradict such reasoning.
Rich
 
There are certain laws that can not be broken, no matter how hard we try to work around them.

One of these is that the union of a man and a woman is a sacred act when accompanied by an oath of fidelity and support.

The strength of any country is found in the strength of the families that make up that country.

Unfortunately many find such oaths "inconvenient" or "unconventional". So they go and get their $99.00 divorce, or choose not to take those oaths, "Just in case it doesn't work out."

What weak character of soul these people have. And it reflects in our everyday politics and living. It makes us all weak.

Gay marriages? Same thing. It's contrary to natural law and it weakens us on the whole. Should they now have children? No. They chose an un-natural lifestyle that does not condone children.

Should we hate them? No.
Should we discriminate against them? No.
Their choice of lifestyle does not naturally hinder their effectiveness as employees or business owners.

So, should we pass benifits to their "partners"? No. I don't believe so. I also don't believe that we should pass benifits to those spouses who are not legally and lawfully wed, either.
No commitment, no benifits.

We don't need to reward people for being weak. It's tearing this country up by the roots.

Murder is murder and should be punished accordingly.

Now, I know I'm going to take heat for this. So be it. But, before you flame me, let me tell you that I'm as guilty as the next man of weakness, but I don't expect any quarter when I am.

Flame on...

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 26, 2000).]
 
Rich, the rape connection to violence and control only is a raging controversy in the analyses of the motivations of such crime.

It ignores the specific sexual nature of the crime and probably reflects a political agenda to ignore the sexuality.

But that's a different thread and I suggest all interested go to a library and phase into the academic literature on the subject. It is very big. New book out on it.

As far as the rest, I hear you and you hear me. That's fine.

John, as far as natural law, show me the books where that is written.

We have changed our views of acceptable sexuality over the years as society has progressed (or fell apart if you take the viewpoint).

I have yet to see any data that indicates gays differentially damage society besides some folks dislike for their sexual orientation. if they want to start relationships with some of the legal strictures of marriage for property rights, who cares.

If a business want to give benefits to partners, it is their decision. If the federal government needs to offer similiar benefits to be competitive for talented folk in the market place, who cares. I would rather have a brilliant gay scientist working for NIMH because he took the job as it had benefits for his partner than have a dumbo working for NIMH just because he was straight and the gay guy turned down the job.

Now that will start another flame war, won't it?

I can't fathom why people care about the sexuality of mentally competent consenting adults. If it is solely on the authority of religious texts and without corresponding evidence of damage to society, then that is not convincing to me.


[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 26, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
John, as far as natural law, show me the books where that is written.[/quote]

Oh, this could be interesting! :)

The Bible and other scripture.

Now, Glenn. Show me the books where it is written that self-defense is a natural law. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We have changed our views of acceptable sexuality over the years as society has progressed (or fell apart if you take the viewpoint).[/quote]

What we have today for "acceptable sexual lifestyles" is recycled immorality.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have yet to see any data that indicates gays differentially damage society besides some folks dislike for their sexual orientation.[/quote]

Historically, any civilization that accepts, on the whole, deviant sexual practices (among other things) sets in motion destructive forces against itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>if they want to start relationships with some of the legal strictures of marriage for property rights, who cares.[/quote]

So, let them make a will. I care. Why reward deviant behaviour, or weak character?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If a business want to give benefits to partners, it is their decision. If the federal government needs to offer similiar benefits to be competitive for talented folk in the market place, who cares. I would rather have a brilliant gay scientist working for NIMH because he took the job as it had benefits for his partner than have a dumbo working for NIMH just because he was straight and the gay guy turned down the job.[/quote]

That's fine, but get government regulations out of the mix, and let people determine the course.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Now that will start another flame war, won't it?[/quote]

Not really. :)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I can't fathom why people care about the sexuality of mentally competent consenting adults. If it is solely on the authority of religious texts and without corresponding evidence of damage to society, then that is not convincing to me.[/quote]

Religious texts are also historical ones and they contain evidence of social manners that damage society. Most of the time such damages take generations to be felt.

The attack on our country is more than just the right to arms. It has multiple fronts.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 26, 2000).]
 
I saw a very interesting show a few months back on Larry King specifically related to the extension of certain marital benefits or extending marriage itself to those living in a homosexual relationship. Most interesting was one homosexual gentleman who opposed the extension of these benefits. Obviously, he was roundly condemned by proponents on the panel. One of his concerns was voiced in conjunction with another opponent who asked, "If the state extends legal marital status to homosexuals,
on what basis will it discriminate in adoption cases between a heterosexual couple, and a homosexual couple who are vying for the same child? If legal 'equality' is granted we are saying as a society there is no intrinsically greater good/benefit for a child to have a mother and father over a father/father or mother/mother. All things being equal states will have no legal way to select a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple simply on the intuitively obvious truth that a child is better off with a stable mother and father than a stable homosexual couple."

Would states be guilty of 'hate' crimes by uniformly selecting married heterosexual couples over married homosexual couples in cases of adoption or similar matters?

If a couple were to decide they are putting their child up for adoption, would they be guilty of a hate crime by specifying heterosexual married couples as the only valid applicants?

Chris..
 
I'm with John/az2 and Battler. It is PC today to decry discrimination. Yet I would submit that everyone discriminates. There is a proper discrimination and an improper discrimination. Discrimination is about making choices. I agree that hate crimes legislation is about special protection for homosexuals at this point in time. It is an attempt to legitimize that lifestyle. It is unnecessary to give protection under the law as that already exists. It is my own belief that few people would not condemn the death of Mathew Shepherd. If I had seen such a thing I would intervene with deadly force if necessary. I would also intervene if I saw Charles Shumer being attacked physically. We must not tolerate such things and violence against any group or individual. We don't need hate crime legislation with its obvious agenda. If one murders then his life should be forfeited. Hate crime is about getting the Federal Govt more involved in the business of the states, and to intrude and dictate more and more in the lives of individuals in furtherance of the liberal agenda. Now as to discrimination. If I had a room to rent in my home or a duplex I would not rent it to a homosexual. I would also not rent it to a drunkard, and adulterer, a thief, or a couple living together outside marriage, or any number of people. That is discrimination, but it is a proper and legitimate discrimination. If I had a small company, especially where employees were closely knit, I would not hire any of these type folks either. I also wouldn't hire a profane individual. If I were hiring for IBM I would be less concerned about the lifestyle of the individual. Christians are commanded to discriminate. I certainly wouldn't hire a homosexual to work in my church. A homosexual would not be permitted to be a member of my church. We would also not accept an adulterer or anyone living in contradiction to the Bible. I could not have a friend who was a homosexual. Homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle that should not find acceptance in this or any society. Jerry

------------------
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
 
Guys-
The official TFL position on Gay/Straight debate is well known. If this thread degenerates into a discussion of gay morality or religion and homosexuality, it's gone. The topic is about hate crime legislation. Please stick to it.

Glenn-
Regarding your position that rape research is not conclusive on the subject of motivation: research is not conclusive on the subject of delayed memory either. In fact, there are some who would explain most delay-reported cases of child molestation as "false memory syndrome". So what? We still agree that, at least, some cases of rape are hate oriented....hatred for females as a class.

Back to the legislation....it requires that the Federal Bureaucracy determine motivation for crimes committed...but only those committed against certain groups. If, as you say, you're in favor of such legislation, why would you bar women from such classification? Why bar white men from such protection?

The point is simple: if you favor the concept of certain crimes garnering a more severe sentence because of motivation, then include all victims in such protection. If you wish this done at the Federal level, then push for a Federal Bureau of Hate Crimes Investigation and let them investigate each violent crime to determine if it should be federally prosecuted or kicked back to the State.

Naturally, such simple logic produces an absurd result. So the CongressCritters use absurd logic to get around the absurdity of the result: rather than looking at every crime, they've decided to look only at the victim. Thus, we make certain classes of Americans sacrosanct; their lives of greater value. This is no different than taxing one class soley based on race and giving the proceeds to another class, soley based on race....in fact, by degree, it's worse.

This entire concept is indefensible in light of the simple statement, "We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal..."
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top