President Obama To Sign Hate Crimes Bill Wednesday »
Posted By TimALoftis 1 month, 3 weeks ago in Political News
One of those big changes President Obama and the Democrats promised during the election is about to become law.
Last week the Senate gave final passage to the bill authorizing spending for the Department of Defense, which included a provision creating a hate crimes designation.
An administration official tells TPMDC Obama will sign the bill at the White House Wednesday. It is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was beaten to death in 1998.
He also will host a reception with gay rights groups and civil rights leaders commemorating the occasion. TPMDC has learned that Matt's mom Judy and brother Logan will attend the signing ceremony.
Read Full Story at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com »
278 Views Share Story 66 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
Wishing All My Friends Here At Propeller The Very Best During This Holiday Season.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 66 (view all)
-
73%
dunkirk1 month, 3 weeks ago
-
27%
Hhussk1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see the right is on dropping articles again, Kinda like voting against letting someone go to court or recieve justice for gang-rape how do u vote against a hate-crime bill. Oh yeah its part of their base.
Reply
I only drop articles I do not think of newsworthy. I'm fairly certain most people drop articles because they do not like the content.
Oh, and about hate-crime...
-
-
25%
Hhussk1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...about "Hate-Crime" legislation.
Reply
One Crime: Two Punishments.
I pray Obama never commits a crime, otherwise he'll go to jail for hating FOX news.
The point: You cannot and should not attempt to determine if hate is in a person's heart.
Later Legislations
"Love-crime" legislation: The penalty is reduced because the criminal did it "out of love".
"Fear-crime" legislation: The penalty is amended to include a mental institution because the criminal was reacting to his fears.
"Bored-crime" legislation: The penalty includes hard labor, keeping the criminal busy, because he couldn't find anything better to do with himself except commit a crime.
Just keeps getting more and more stupid...-
100%
epiphannyy1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We already have multiple punishments (or punishment levels) associated with the same basic crime. Look at all the levels of homicide as an example. If a crime is a crime is a crime, then why isn't that logic applied to homicide? A person is dead and someone else is responsible. Why have all the added confusion of 1st or 2nd degree or even negligent homicide. Then, of course, you have manslaughter and all the different classifications with that - voluntary, involuntary, vehicular, etc.
Reply
If a crime is a crime is a crime, why is it accepted that what prompted one person killing another matters in the level of crime committed, as well as the potential future threat posed by the killer?
That's all hate crimes legislation does. It adds another level, or "degree" if you will, to allow for proper sentencing. We have a "special circumstance" attachment to allow for the stiffer sentence of death for certain murders and other "high crimes"...a "hate crime" classification is just like a "domestic terrorism" recognition. Why shouldn't the terror aspect of hate crimes honestly be factored into the sentencing process? -
67%
mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...about "Hate-Crime" legislation.
Reply
One Crime: Two Punishments."
--No. How many times must you have this explained to you? If you hit and kill someone with your car, the penalty may be more or less severe depending on whether the victim was in a crosswalk or whether you were sober or drinking, or speeding, or you left the scene, or stayed and gave the victim CPR, or you were driving without a license, etc. Are you gonna argue that "one crime" is being punished twice? Of course not. If you kill someone while drunk, unlicenced, uninsured, and you then flee the scene--do you consider all of that to be "one crime." No. Of course you don't.
If I were to meet you in a dark alley and attack you with a tire iron or nail-studded bat or golf club or kryptonite lock or fence post or rusty iron skilled...any of those things-- that might be classified as one crime. OTOH, if I beat you with one of those objects while screaming that I hate all neocons for destroying my country for voting for Bush twice and now trying to get back into office to do more damage by being Glenn Beck sheep, THAT would probably be classified as a hate crime. That'd be true even if you *weren't* guilty of being any of those disgraceful things.
I'll leave you with a question...Let's say you are with your friend who is a different race from you and some thugs who are the same race as you come and beat you both up because of your friend's race. They punch him once and give him a black eye while screaming racial slurs but they decide to beat you to a pulp and leave you with several broken bones and missing teeth (for being friends with a guy of another race). Tell me, were you or were you not a victim of the same crime your friend was (even though the slurs were in reference to your friend's race and he only got a black eye)? If the police tell you that the guys who attacked you would face a stiffer penalty because it was a hate crime against you both, what would you say? "No thanks, officer. I'm good. Please leave me in peace to study my copy of the Constitution and sort through my hospital bills."? ;-0
-
-
63%
truthiness1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to say I think this is wrong, you shouldn't be able to charge someone for their thoughts.
Reply
if you commit assault or graffiti or murder or arson, that is the crime. motive should only matter as part of demonstrating guilt of a crime, not as a crime itself.
this open up a dangerous door.-
-
88%
epiphannyy1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not charging someone for their thoughts. It is taking into account the motivations for their crime and assigning an appropriate punishment based on the potential of future threat.
Reply
Just like a "special circumstance" is attached to a "serial murderer" as opposed to someone who just kills more than one person. Or someone who gets made and beats/kills someone isn't the same threat as someone who plots, fumes, stalks, and attacks those they deem unworthy of human dignity. The threat from a hot blooded killer isn't the same as from a cold blooded killer.
Hate crimes legislation allows for that added level of threat to be addressed in the sentencing process. Many things influence sentencing, this is just one more thing. And hate crimes are a serious threat that needs to be addressed, rather than ignored as they have been historically in this country.
Put it this way....let's switch this up and make the average American the victim of the hate crime instead of the perpetrator or the innocent bystander. Let's say that you are at home, living in a suburb somewhere, basically a safe neighborhood where kids still play in the street and trick-or-treat every Halloween. Then, let's say, someone new moves into the neighborhood and all hell breaks loose. This person is a loud, aggressive bully. He openly and actively terrorizes your entire neighborhood. Every time you leave your home, he harasses you or your family to the point that you stop going outside. You call the police and take out restraining orders against him. Then one morning you find out that he savagely beat your neighbor, putting him in the hospital, for no other reason than that he was out on the street and available to be beat down.
Now...is he someone who deserves a long sentence, only made possible with hate crimes legislation, or is a slap on the wrists with a few months in jail because that's all a simple assault charge can bring as a punishment?
Now...if you say that yes, the current sentencing guidelines are good enough, then ask yourself if you would still feel that way if his name were bin Laden?
Keep in mind, you can't preemptively shoot him because that would be murder. As long as he's just terrorizing you and your neighbors, that's only harassment, which results in nothing but a warning from officials. Hate, and being hateful, is fully legal in America. So the reaction of "I'd just blow him away" isn't REALLY an option in today's world. Would you want him back home in a few months if he were your neighbor?
Situations like this is what make hate crimes legislation necessary. -
100%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
mesodude1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have to say I think this is wrong, you shouldn't be able to charge someone for their thoughts."
Reply
--Um, truthiness? If you were to beat me within an inch of my life while simply *thinking* anti-religious or racist slurs, I *probably* won't have a lot of luck having you prosecuted for a hate crime. Not unless I can convince a law enforcement officer that I have ESP.
"if you commit assault or graffiti or murder or arson, that is the crime. motive should only matter as part of demonstrating guilt of a crime, not as a crime itself."
--So even if the graffiti includes swastikas or if someone burns a cross on your lawn, you don't think that's any big deal, right?
"this open up a dangerous door."
--Sometimes I fear that right wingers here never bothered to open a door leading into a classroom. ;-( -
-
Neutral
truthiness1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
imagine 2 or 3 admins go by and now the christian right is in charge again. if they decide to use this precedent to make public blasphemy against christ a hate crime, how will that be prevented?
Reply
the constitution was written to be preventative against worst case scenario corruption for a reason.
-
-
63%
oneironaut4201 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess this is where most liberals and I part ways. Just as I am strongly against giving the government the power to legally murder it's own citizens, I am equally against giving the government the power to punish some citizens more for what amounts to "thought crimes". Crime is crime...regardless of the reason. I find it personally offensive that someone can mug me, and not get as much time in jail as they would have if I'd been gay or black. 8(
Reply-
88%
epiphannyy1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You miss the point of "hate crime" if you honestly believe that any simple mugging would be prosecuted as a "hate crime".........it's not the same.
Reply
If you were targeted for that mugging because of who you are, whoever you are, and the hatred of who you are is what prompted the crime, sentencing appropriately for that motivation is important. Why? Because, when you are specifically targeted because of who are what you are, you aren't the only victim. Hate crimes are akin to domestic terrorism....they terrorize a community. When a black person is beat or killed simply for being black, that terrorizes the entire black community. When a gay person is targeted and beat/killed for being gay, that terrorizes the entire gay community. When ANY "hate crime" takes place, it terrorizes an entire community of people, of every potential future victim. A single mugging doesn't do that because you can actually take steps to lower your risk of becoming a victim of a mugging......the same can't be said about someone who is attacked for simply existing. People can't change being black or gay or whatever made them a target for that hate.
That is not to say the violence or the violation felt by the victim of a simple mugging is any less, but the impact of such a crime is not the same. Just like the difference between a handful of murders over several years, and a handful of murders by known serial killer.
The difference is the terror that is attached to those who commit these crimes and the level of overall threat they pose to society. That terror is their weapon. What hate crimes legislation does is state, in no uncertain terms, that to wield that weapon is to do so at your own peril. -
100%
Tangent0011 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Crime is crime...regardless of the reason."
Reply
Because the intent is different. I agree it should have little relevance in rape or murder, but what about the spray-painting of Swastika on a synagogue as opposed to 'Kilroy was here' on a random wall? Both are vandalism, but I would argue the former has the 'intent' to instill fear or otherwise cause insult to a particular class of people. -
100%
Coatl1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would say that a Hate Crime is a lot like terrorism (if they're not the same), is a crime with a message. Like victims of a terrorist attacks, the real victims of a hate crime are not those who died or were directly injured in the crime, but every one of the group of those attacked. Just remember 9/11, was it an attack against those who were near those buildings or planes, or was it an attack against the US, or even against the "Western world".
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So jm, does that mean that people cannot be attacked for being Jewish, Catholic, Evangelical, gay or straight? What if a person is transgendered? Attacks against transgender people happen all too frequently but often go unreported. Hate crimes are committed in part to scare or terrorize an entire community, not just one victim. They are attacks on all gays in the area, for example. When Matthew Shepard was crucified in Wyoming, the culprits who killed him committed a hate crime. They would have just as well killed any other gay man if given the chance.
Reply
-
-
80%
primusdawg1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Several comments have hinted at the real justification for this kind of law, and I don't know why proponents don't say this outright: what is called a "hate-crime" is actually a form of terrorism. The victims of a hypothetical front-yard cross-burning aren't just the black family in that house; they are all blacks who may live or wish to live in that neighborhood. The message is for them ("keep out") as much as the householders ("get out")...This is a crime against a class of persons, designed to intimidate that entire class into changing their behavior in some way. When bombs are used we call it "terrorism".
Reply
Of course our laws takes intent into account; how else would a system distinguish between accidentally running down a pedestrian and deliberately doing so? The person is dead either way, so should the driver get the same punishment?
And what about killing in the heat of passion versus methodically hiring an assassin? Does not the law make a distinction?
Conversely, without "hate-crime" laws, a misfit who paints a swastika on a Jewish home has merely committed a property crime! Is that right? Is there no other, larger offense here? "Hate-crime" is an unfortunate term, but we're stuck with it. It does not criminalize thought; it criminlizes intent, which has always been under the purview of legal punishment. Remember, you can go to prison for the intent to commit murder, even if the undercover cop you hired to do so never carried it out.-
Neutral
truthiness1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
how else would a system distinguish between accidentally running down a pedestrian and deliberately doing so?
Reply
-motive is part of how they determine guilt, in this example, guilt of murder or negligent homicide
And what about killing in the heat of passion versus methodically hiring an assassin?
-there the differnce would be between murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
a misfit who paints a swastika on a Jewish home has merely committed a property crime! Is that right? Is there no other, larger offense here?
-as a jew I can tell you there is definilty a larger crime here. that crime is on the books as intimidation or harrasment (depending on where). the difference between that and hate crime is that intimidation is an action/ reaction based event, hate is motive for commiting the act.
you can go to prison for the intent to commit murder, even if the undercover cop you hired to do so never carried it out.
-you would be charged with conspiracy, the act of trying to cause a murder, not desiring to commit murder.
-
More News
Politics Daily
Journalist Deaths Spike in 2009
Bad-News Poll Week for Obama, but Hey, Things Could Be Worse
Casey at Bat on Abortion Funding: Home Run or Strikeout?
Adderall Still an Appealing --Though Risky -- Solution for Students During Finals
Monica Lewinsky Tells Author of Impeachment Book that Bill Clinton Lied to the Grand Jury
Fox News Politics
Defense Spending Bill Clears Senate Hurdle
Liberal MoveOn.org Rallies Members to Oppose Senate Health Care Bill
Democratic Holdout Controls Fate of Senate Health Care Bill
Obama Says U.S., Russia 'Close' to Reaching Nuclear Arms Agreement
Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows
The Huffington Post
Nomi Prins: Feminomics: Women Reformers Motivated by a No Tolerance Rule
Laurence Hughes: The 10 Best Years That Are Books
Jim Kennedy: Senator Lieberman: The Joe I Know
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Time to Ban BPA from Food and Beverage Containers
Leon T. Hadar: The Moral Hazard of U.S. Global Interventions
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.