News & Politics - White House opposes hate crime bill

Ashleigh · 05-03-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

White House opposes hate crime bill

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer - 52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.

The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The White House also noted that the bill would leave out other classes such as the elderly, members of the military or police officers.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as enrolling in school, voting or traveling between states.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

That would make it easier for federal authorities to become involved in hate crimes, although
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases.

"To ensure federal restraint, the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this measure," he said. He also stressed that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or writing.

Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill would face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death could bring life terms.

The Judiciary Committee cited
FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.

___

The bill is H.R. 1592.

Source

Sparrowhawk · 05-03-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashleigh (View Post)

Source

Bah.

There should not be separate crimes for differing motivations. The crime is equally bad regardless of the motivation.

Indian Summer · 05-03-2007, 03:54 PM

I don't really think it's that simple. While I agree that a crime is equally bad regardless of the motivation, there's a sizeable difference between the impact of a hate crime on a society and an ordinary, every day crime. A random mugging at a subway stop might put fear into those who travel that route often, but a mugging of someone because they're Jewish or black or gay puts that fear into a whole group.

Sparrowhawk · 05-03-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

I don't really think it's that simple. While I agree that a crime is equally bad regardless of the motivation, there's a sizeable difference between the impact of a hate crime on a society and an ordinary, every day crime. A random mugging at a subway stop might put fear into those who travel that route often, but a mugging of someone because they're Jewish or black or gay puts that fear into a whole group.

I don't think a black man being afraid is any worse than a traveler being afraid. Neither do I think the crime against that certain black man is any worse for motivation behind it. It just smacks of making an example out of someone. That's unequal application of the law.

Indian Summer · 05-03-2007, 09:12 PM

If you read my post, I'm not saying one person's fear is worse than another's. What I'm saying is that a hate crime puts fear in a much larger group of people- in many cases, in a whole subculture. In a society where a lot of the lawfulness is the result of trusting law enforcement and courts to do their jobs, this is a major problem. If you have a whole group of blacks, or Muslims, or gays, and so on thinking they aren't protected by their government, it's very possible, even likely, that they'll consider taking justice into their own hands. There's a reason that police are the ones with the right to shoot criminals and not the average citizen. The average citizen isn't trained to be able to tell the difference between a situation where that bullet is required and where it isn't.

sick little jag · 05-04-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrowhawk (View Post)

I don't think a black man being afraid is any worse than a traveler being afraid. Neither do I think the crime against that certain black man is any worse for motivation behind it. It just smacks of making an example out of someone. That's unequal application of the law.

Tell that to Matthew Sheppard. Tell that to victims of the Seattle Jewish Community Center shootings and North Valley Jewish Community Center shooting in Los Angeles. Tell that to the hundreds of blacks lynched and murderd for just being Black.

A Hate Crime is not an ordinary crime. It takes a special kind of malice to target someone due to their skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. It's unequal application of the law for unequal and unjustifiable hatred and violence.

Sparrowhawk · 05-04-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

If you read my post, I'm not saying one person's fear is worse than another's. What I'm saying is that a hate crime puts fear in a much larger group of people- in many cases, in a whole subculture.

This is irrelevent to the crime commited, however. If a beating is motivated by greed, by political affiliation, by what the victim was wearing, by the sexual orientation of the victim or by the support of one sports team over another, all are equally heinous reasons.

The fear of gay people is not worse than others. The number of fearful people should not be a factor in defining the crime. The view that gays deserve more protection from the exact same assault is offensive to me. There is nothing about sexual orientation that would make one worse off from an attack, so there is nothing that warrants stricter sentences for their attackers

Quote:

Originally Posted by sick little jag

Tell that to Matthew Sheppard. Tell that to victims of the Seattle Jewish Community Center shootings and North Valley Jewish Community Center shooting in Los Angeles. Tell that to the hundreds of blacks lynched and murderd for just being Black.

Those who do these things should be punished for shooting and lynching. Not shooting a gay person or lynching a black man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sick little jag

A Hate Crime is not an ordinary crime. It takes a special kind of malice to target someone due to their skin color, religion, or sexual orientation.

Each reason is equally bad. There is no scale saying that killing for money is morally better than killing for skin color or political affiliation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sick little jag

It's unequal application of the law for unequal and unjustifiable hatred and violence.

It's unequal protection of the law and preferential treatment to assume that assaulting a gay man is worse than assaulting the same man for a different reason.

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrowhawk (View Post)

This is irrelevent to the crime commited, however. If a beating is motivated by greed, by political affiliation, by what the victim was wearing, by the sexual orientation of the victim or by the support of one sports team over another, all are equally heinous reasons.

How so? You're acting like motivation plays no part in how a crime is treated- so what's going on with those murder charges? There's voluntary manslaughter, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree... they're all the same crime, right? They're all because someone killed another person? So... obviously motivation does play a part in how a crime is viewed.

Quote:

The fear of gay people is not worse than others. The number of fearful people should not be a factor in defining the crime. The view that gays deserve more protection from the exact same assault is offensive to me. There is nothing about sexual orientation that would make one worse off from an attack, so there is nothing that warrants stricter sentences for their attackers

It certainly should be a factor given the fact the number one fear of democracy over the past three centuries has been mob rule. A larger group of fearful people is more likely to lead to chaos in a society, and therefore an escalating crime rate. It's not about the victim, really- it's about proving to the society this won't be tolerated and they don't have a reason to take justice into their own hands.

Quote:

Each reason is equally bad. There is no scale saying that killing for money is morally better than killing for skin color or political affiliation.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Killing for passion is considered "lesser" than killing for money, because killing for money generally means premeditated. They're all the same crime, but the motivation does affect things. In the case of political affiliation, that can become an assassination/treason charge... killing the President, for example, is going to be treated differently than killing a woman walking down a street. It's a different crime and the severity is different due to the result.

Quote:

It's unequal protection of the law and preferential treatment to assume that assaulting a gay man is worse than assaulting the same man for a different reason.

How so? Both crimes are being prosecuted, and both criminals would receive similar sentences. The difference is mainly between labeling said crime "assault" or "hate crime." One eliminates some of the fear in a large society, the other doesn't.

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 03:20 PM

I think hate crimes demean and degrade the actual crime and victim in a way. Besides, murder is still murder in my book. It shouldn't matter if you hated the person or not. You should go to prison for a long time either way.
Besides, where do you draw the line on what's a hate crime and what isn't? If a white man kills a minority, is that a hate crime? If a straight person kills a gay person, is that a hate crime?

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 03:25 PM

Jacob, hate crimes are fully investigated. A white man killing a black man wouldn't even potentially be considered a hate crime until an investigation led police to believe that white man was racist, you know? Crimes between people of two different racial/ethnic/religious groups wouldn't automatically be branded hate crimes.

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 03:38 PM

I just think when you label a crime a hate crime, it makes something more than it really is.
Murder is murder in my opinion. It doesn't make it any less or more if the suspect hated the victim.
I don't think a white guy should go to jail for life just say for instance he punched a black guy once because he doesn't like black people. Racism and prejudice are wrong but I don't think you should be arrested for it. You shouldn't arrest people for hating people. If it was a crime to hate someone or some group, then the prisons worldwide would be overpopulated.
In general, people usually don't like what's different from them and what is out of their comfort zone. Common sense.

However, I'm sure no one would give a crap if say an atheist killed a Christian person because that person hates Christians. Everyone would say that's no hate crime.

Oh yeah and is it really a hate crime if say a white man hates one particular person and kills them or does it only apply to minorities? Seems to me that hate crimes only protect women, gays, and minorities. Doesn't seem very fair and equal to me.

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 03:43 PM

No one's suggesting a life sentence for a punch, Jacob...

Sparrowhawk · 05-04-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

How so? You're acting like motivation plays no part in how a crime is treated- so what's going on with those murder charges? There's voluntary manslaughter, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree... they're all the same crime, right? They're all because someone killed another person? So... obviously motivation does play a part in how a crime is viewed.
[snip]
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Killing for passion is considered "lesser" than killing for money, because killing for money generally means premeditated. They're all the same crime, but the motivation does affect things

You're not talking about motivation here, you're talking about premeditation, or lying in wait for your victim. Premeditated killing is generally first degree murder. Non-premeditated is generally second degree. Third degree, if it exists in that particular State, would encompass the rest.

Any number of motivations may be behind either premeditated or non-premeditated killing. One may kill for money or status or because they hate the victim's baseball team or because the victim is gay. Any of these motivations may be behind the premeditated crime, but the crime they are accused of should not change because of that motivation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

A larger group of fearful people is more likely to lead to chaos in a society, and therefore an escalating crime rate. It's not about the victim, really- it's about proving to the society this won't be tolerated and they don't have a reason to take justice into their own hands.

So, then, it's making an example out of the perpetrator. That's unequal application of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

In the case of political affiliation, that can become an assassination/treason charge... killing the President, for example, is going to be treated differently than killing a woman walking down a street. It's a different crime and the severity is different due to the result.

It's a different crime, but it is not different because of the motivation. Whether you kill the President because you think he's ruining the country or because he came onto your wife when he visited your town or because he's gay should not change the crime you're accused of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

How so? Both crimes are being prosecuted, and both criminals would receive similar sentences. The difference is mainly between labeling said crime "assault" or "hate crime." One eliminates some of the fear in a large society, the other doesn't.

If the difference is only the label then the President should veto the bill just on that basis (even ignoring the Federal Gov't has no business in this area). We don't need such laws cluttering up the books. They're bad enough already.

Sparrowhawk · 05-04-2007, 03:49 PM

Double post

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 03:54 PM

I just think it's crazy and somewhat illegal to arrest people because of what they think. Besides, you can't read people's minds unless you're on Heroes. LOL


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > White House opposes hate crime bill