The Issues of 2004 vote

[irenetheserene]

Check out the Civil Rights section. Check out the Hate Legislation. It's okay to hate certain groups W?

www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html

Irene

[piper]

The Hate Crimes issue is always one-sided. Plus, I don't think the government should pass laws on how we think even if what we think is wrong. This is coming from a person who happens to be a "minority" (Asian/Spanis) btw.

[Msjulier]

The laws are to prosecute violaters of hate crimes.

[piper]

Msjulier said:

The laws are to prosecute violaters of hate crimes.

But it's based on the thought process of the perpatraitors of these crimes. In many cases, this is not needed, because there are already laws in place to punish these criminals appropriately.

[Lesa]

There are also different penalties based on whether someone planned the crime or if it was committed in the heat of the moment, so why not extend it to hate crimes?  Sure, it has part to do with how a person thinks, but I think it could possibly cut down on rallying groups together to commit these hate crimes.  Take the KKK, for instance.  Sure, they have the right to assemble and speak, but they may be a little more careful about what they try to talk people into during their rallies.  Then again, maybe not, but who knows?

Anyway, to be fair, the CNN website states Bush's position on hate crime legislation as:

Opposes expanding federal law to cover sexual orientation

It doesn't say whether or not he's against all hate crime regislation, like biggotry against different races, etc.  But if he supports hate crime legislation but doesn't want to extend it to sexual orientation, then I have a real problem with that.

[piper]

Because like I said, they are laws already on the books to combat this. We don't need a seperate law in my view. Rape is a crime, so is murder, and assault. Just about anything that one person does to harm any other person is already against the law. I agree it is sad that we have bigotry in this country in this day and age, but bigotry alone should not be regulated by the federal government.

I remember too this issue came up during the 2000 election, and the President was criticized for not taking a stronger stance on Hate Crimes legislation his own state. Meanwhile, the person whom commmited crime, based on race, in a case that everyone was citing for their criticism got the death penalty. Therefore, in that case, I don't see what else the could have done more concering the punishment of the criminal.

Also it's one sided like I said. The Constitution says that everyone's guaranteed equal protection under the law. Would this mean that whites will have the same protections under a Hate Crime Law? Just like that guy (I forget his name.) that shot everyone in the subway in New York just because they were Caucasians. I don't believe it will. Therefore, the law's will be Unconstitutional.

[A1ecto]

What about for crimes like what happened to Matthew Sheppard, piper? Google if you don't know.

Also it's one sided like I said. The Constitution says that everyone's guaranteed equal protection under the law. Would this mean that whites will have the same protections under a Hate Crime Law? Just like that guy (I forget his name.) that shot everyone in the subway in New York just because they were Caucasians. I don't believe it will. Therefore, the law's will be Unconstitutional.

If they are victims of a hate crime, yes. Why wouldn't they be protected?

For example: Getting killed just for being black/white/asian/hispanic/gay/straight/male/female/etc = a hate crime.

[Lesa]

You bring up an excellent point by bringing up Matthew Shepard, A1ecto. Matthew Shepherd was beat and left tied to a fence to die, just because he was gay. James Byrd was chained to the back of a pickup and dragged until his head came off, just because he was black. Not only are hate crimes pre-meditated, but they can be cruel and unusual as well, and that's why we need tougher punishments for hate-driven murder than for, say, someone who kills someone for the purpose of taking their money.

People don't always get the death penalty for committing pre-meditated murder, but anyone who is sadistic enough to kill someone in the manner in which they killed Matthew Shepard or James Byrd, definitely deserves the worst possible punishment we can give them. Give a sadistic murderer five years or so of solitary confinement and let the world see what that does to a person, just moments before frying them in the electric chair, and maybe people will think twice before dragging someone around by the feet until their head pops off.

It's not about the thought process of the perpetrators. It's about their actions, the cruel and unusual things they do, that happen to be driven by that thought process.

[A1ecto]

Well said, Le!

[piper]

If they are victims of a hate crime, yes. Why wouldn't they be protected?

Becaue Caucasians are the majority and therefore will be omitted from hate crimes legislation. Therefore, on that basis the law will be unconstitutional.

www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Lesa]

Thanks, A1ecto.

Piper, are you saying that caucasions will be omitted as the perpetrator? Or as the victim? And how is that quote supposed to create any type of omission either way?

[piper]

I'm saying as victims they would be omitted, and therefore unconstitional, because the law will not be applied equally to all of the citizens. The part "equal protection under the law" is that I was trying to stress there.

This is why I am against the same sex marriage amendment too, because you have to apply the law equally.

[A1ecto]

You don't have to be a minority to be the victim of a hate crime.

[Lesa]

Ditto what A1ecto said.  I'm sure there were quite a few whites in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  But speaking in everyday terms, bigots come in many colors, and our white heads can pop off just as easily as the next shade.

This is why I am against the same sex marriage amendment too, because you have to apply the law equally.

Don't you think that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, Piper?

[piper]

No the contrary. Should have explained myself better, sorry. I meant I'm against the amendment to ban. It's wrong for the government to discriminate.

[Lesa]

Oops, you said you were against the same sex marriage amendment, not against same sex marriages.  I should have caught that the first time, so my apologies for misinterpreting it.

It looks like we finally found a political issue we both agree on.

[Scrappy Amazon]

I don't think we need more laws for this kind of stuff. We need more Lawmakers and Law enforcement people who care that this kind of stuff happens. The lack of compassion scares me more than the lack of laws.

[A1ecto]

scrappyamazon said:

I don't think we need more laws for this kind of stuff. We need more Lawmakers and Law enforcement people who care that this kind of stuff happens. The lack of compassion scares me more than the lack of laws.

If a crime is going to happen, it's going to happen, regardless how many officers there are out there. This sort of crime is thought out to avoid all encounters with authorities.

[piper]

scrappyamazon said:

I don't think we need more laws for this kind of stuff. We need more Lawmakers and Law enforcement people who care that this kind of stuff happens. The lack of compassion scares me more than the lack of laws.

Exactly SS. It also goes to this thing about thought. Don't get me wrong, I can't fathom why one human being would want to kill another, because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, but I think education is more of a solution than hate crimes legislation. I would like this stuff to stop before it happens.

[Lesa]

I agree that we need to educate people, but I think education should be used along with the legislation.

Going back to my example of 9/11, people follow people like Osama because they actually believe what those "leaders" have to say (although we didn't exactly refute his claims when we attacked someone who wasn't even involved with 9/11, but that's beside the point).

My point is that, Osama's followers actually believe (as far as I can tell) that it's their duty to kill as many of us as they possibly can, and that doing so will bring them great glory in Heaven.  If they could learn to live and let live and let the "Almighty" be the judge instead of thinking it's their duty to be the judge, then we could cut down on the terrorism.

I say "cut down," because other groups have other "reasons" for attacking us.  Some do it just because they despise the way we (not me or you personally, but people in our Government) try to police and judge the world, which could get into a whole other discussion.

Personally, I would love to sit down with Osama and his followers and help them to see the light, but unfortunately, you can't change a lifetime of beliefs over lunch.  I know this is an extreme example, but my point with it is that education takes time, and although you can educate some, it's impossible to educate everyone, especially when the hatred runs so deep and they think the ones trying to educate them are lying.

This is why we also need legislation to go along with the education.  Since education alone won't prevent these crimes, we need the legislation to pick up some of the slack.


Another point I want to make is that if hate crimes are treated the same way as other crimes, then that's not truly equal protection under the law.  For example, my white skin already protects me against the KKK, while blacks are at a greater risk at having their home burnt down or their body being decapitated by them.  Just like banks use greater security measures than, say, a second-hand clothing store, minorities need extra security too, just to "level the playing field."


This isn't legislation against thought, because we are free to think anything we want.  In many cases, we can even say what we want, but if someone leads a rally and tells everyone, "We need to go out and kill those n****rs," and someone acts on it, then the speaker should be held accountable for their part in the crime.

Also, let's look at crimes that are less severe than murder for a minute.  Let's look at assault.  If one guy beats up another guy just because he's gay, then shouldn't he get a stiffer penalty than a guy who beats up another guy over a disagreement?  After all, the victim that has a disagreement with the bully had a chance to walk away before it got to that point, but the gay guy can't just change his orientation to avoid having his arse kicked; and the biggot who will beat up a gay guy unprovoked is more likely to attack again than someone who assaults someone after being provoked.

Of course, gay bashing usually occurs in groups, unlike your typical bar fight (although those can occur in groups as well), and these groups are more likely to leave their victim either dead or on the verge of death.  They are also more likely to commit the same crime again.  And you don't have to have mind readers to determine their reason for ganging up on someone if they're yelling out "You stupid fa***t!" or "Damned ni***r!"


Scrappy said:

We need more Lawmakers and Law enforcement people who care that this kind of stuff happens.

Those are the lawmakers that are trying to pass these laws.

[Scrappy Amazon]

Those are the lawmakers that are trying to pass these laws.

I'm not sure I believe that. Seems like a lot of agrandizing to me most of the time.

[Gabbin]

I wonder about what the issue will come down to for the majority. The war may decide it over economy. A new study just came out from the Bush managment of Budgets (or some such name) and they are saying the rich, through tax cuts, increased the income of the wealthy by 10%. Sorry, it was not a click and drag thing. I don't wander much.

Another hot topic is the no money left behind policy of schools. Turned out this was a very bad idea. I don't think they realize how bad. It ends up being that a bad school is dumped and the lucky ones try to pile into the good schools setting up for super-sized schools with crowding issues. More people driving to one big school.