Hate crimes are different

Can we now pass a law that makes a violent crime against children a hate crime?

Building on this already insanely-long thread…

Saperstein writes:

"Hate crimes are nothing less than attacks on those values that are the pillars of our republic and the guarantors of our freedom. They erode our national well being. Those who commit these crimes do so fully intending to tear at the too-often frayed threads of diversity that bind us together and make us strong. They seek to divide and conquer. They seek to tear us apart from within, pitting American against American, fomenting violence and civil discord."

I think Saperstein is granting the people who commit so-called hate crimes nowadays far too much credit. These people are lashing back against the progressive trajectory of history, and they are ignorant of the futility of their violence (read: so-called hate crimes are not going to make superficially different people “go away” – not in America, not in Rwanda, not in Bosnia, etc.). To borrow Saperstein’s point of reference and mention the Holocaust, we should recall that Nazi war criminals – some of the most organized and determined haters in modern history – were prosecuted at Nuremberg not because they singled out Jews, homosexuals, etc., but because they enslaved and murdered many, many, MANY people. Do the proponents of hate crimes legislation in America think that the Nuremberg trials somehow missed the point?

The bottom line is that, in America, you are not supposed to be able to punish people for being stupid. You are only supposed to be able to punish people for what they do. And if people want to do harm to other people because of boneheaded identity politics, then it is their choice to do so, and it is their choice to face the consequences. Which already exist.

Okay... here's the difference between "regular" crime and "hate crime".

If someone goes to the mall and is mugged in the parking lot, it's a regular crime.

If someone goes to the mall and is singled out as a homosexual, called (insert gay slur here) and beaten up, it's a hate crime. It speaks to motive.

Do "crimes of passion" garner harsher or more lenient sentences than those with other motives? I don't know.

fr samscram:

>Hate crime legislation is another effort to enforce a politically correct compendium of thought and speech....

Nope, sorry, no parting gifts for YOU.

Why not simply take the additional penalties proposed for "hate crimes" and add them to ALL violent crimes? Is there any form of violence, particularly violence resulting in death, tha is NOT motivated by hate? I doubt very many criminals love or respect their victims. Also, what is the point of a hate crime charge in a murder case? Are we going to execute the defendent twice?

Can anyone tell me a crime which does not involve hate?

Practically anyone to the right of Gandhi would brand me a liberal and I think so-called "hate crimes" laws are repugnant.

No matter how you want to dress it up, it is patently un-American to punish thoughts, ideas & opinions -- which is exactly what these laws do by enhancing penalties for criminal actions according to the viewpoints of the accused.

"Hate crime" legislation uses people's thoughts (presumed or stated) to violate the doctrine of equal protection by declaring certain groups more valuable than others by virtue of declaring crimes against those groups arising from some inherent defining characteristic of the group to be of greater harm to the interests of all, and therefore deserving of more stringent penalty. Furthermore, it is impossible to apply these additional sanctions and criteria consistently. I'd rather see increased penalties for all violent crime.

Many interesting posts here. Love to see this timely debate, because the United States is moving into a period of financial turmoil. My view (from the peanut gallery) is that Germany was receptive to the Nazis largely because of financial turmoil. Does Saperstein think that hate crime laws would have prevented the Holocaust? My view is that it will be easier to avoid that fate without hate crime laws.

While the posters debate the hate crime laws, and have different views toward gays, it looks like none are interested in violence against gays.

Cheers!

Hello conrad031,

"Its the general public that should be protected from such sexual orientation people who generate, transmit and perpetuate the HIV/AIDS pandemic..."

HIV/AIDS is not sexual orientation oriented, Conrad, though you may love to believe the fallacy that it is. It is not generated, created, originated or initiated by homosexuality, or any other form of sexuality. You post is an example of, strung out into action of violence against another aspect of God's Creation, hate crimes initiatives are reasonable contemplations for legislation.

Hey, did you just understand what I just wrote? Yes? Oh, no. Hey, no. Surprise.

"Gays dismembered the body of a straight kid Jesse Dirkhising"

And how many heterosexual tiny peter boys beat hell out of straights, hung them up on crosses or fence posts, and felt oh, so much better about themselves? Where is the sickness, exactly, Conrad?

"Gays are implicated as serial killers i.e.Cunanan,Gacy, Dahmer"

Gays are not implicated, you bigoted phobe, any more than heterosexuals are implicated in the violent rape and murder of the 14 year old the next town over. What twisted world do you live in? You would love to "implicate" gays in all kinds of decline of western civilization, just to seek to duck the bullet for yourself and heterosexual tinies. But it is darkness and evil that causes darkness and evil, not sexual orientation, (or any orientation), in and of itself. I am sure that you get that, at least unconsciously. For if it were conscious I cannot understand how one could stand oneself.

Do you get that? No? No surprise.

Inhale one, you may well find a deep connection, by the look of your post. Hate equals love to some, by any psychologists definition.

What an incredibly offensive way to start an article! Since when does being Jewish give Mr. Saperstein's thoughts on any subject - be it hate crimes or homophobia or the Redskins - greater validity than anyone else's?

Posted by: Itzajob
-------------------------
Gosh, it's interesting to watch the anti-Jewish racists crawl out of the cracks like cockroaches. Also, very helpful, since there is a panelist here who evidently doesn't know how plentiful they are.

And what Itza qualifies the Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, et al, from speaking on this issue? The fact that they are Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims?

Gee, I wonder why Jews aren't asking Itza's questions, spewing like Whistling & co., on the other threads.
------------------------
Guess what, Itza? Reread your question. You answered it by posing it. (Not to worry, though. Most racists do the likewise.)

Most victims of violent crime are killed by people they know or are killed because they live or interact with people in dangerous places, such as an inner city ghetto. This means that a stranger crime, based on any identifiable eccentricity and in a normal part of town would be particularly damaging to our social network as a lot of people get scared and feel targeted and are a lot less comfortable going outside. I personally feel we should target inner city violence and domestic violence also, two other large categories of violent crime. However what you would do strategically in those situations would be different as the criminal behavior is different and the warning signs are different. While murders are murders, most of them tend to fall into categories that can be minimized in different ways.

Its the general public that should be protected from such sexual orientation people who generate, transmit and perpetuate the HIV/AIDS pandemic that kills themselves, their partners and now threatens our blood supply as the Red Cross is allowing them to donate blood.

Gays dismembered the body of a straight kid Jesse Dirkhising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Dirkhising

Gays are implicated as serial killers i.e.Cunanan,Gacy, Dahmer
http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html

What an incredibly offensive way to start an article! Since when does being Jewish give Mr. Saperstein's thoughts on any subject - be it hate crimes or homophobia or the Redskins - greater validity than anyone else's?

The author seems to be defending a form of ïdentity-based victimization (some victims are more "victim" than others).

Crimes against persons should be judged on the nature of the transgression not the identity of the victim.

T

Amanita1,

"I would challenge David Saperstein to justify the exclusion of rape from punishment as a hate crime that advantages all men by permitting any woman to be terrorized and demeaned as an individual rather than as rape defines her - a member of "an entire group of Americans" that includes half of all Americans."
-----------------------
Great post! I wholeheartedly agree. The sad fact is that women are still the "particular" of the male "universal," regardless of the matter at hand.

I am reminded of an incident in Israel, maybe, sixty years ago. There was a serial rapist on the loose, and officials met to determine how best to advise women to protect themselves. Among the proposals was that women be instructed not to go out alone after dark until the rapist was caught.

Golda Meir, not yet prime minister, interrupted: "Wait a minute. It is a man who is doing the raping. Therefore, shouldn't the men be advised to stay home?"
--------------------------
Rape is a hate crime. I'm not worried about the number of rapists who might have to face stiffer sentences, who might be classified as hate crime felons.

You know, I'm going to have to take time to ponder the "reasoning" that led to the objections. Hard to comprehend. In the meantime, there is only one way to get rape re-classified, and that is for women to fight for it, just as we have fought for every other right that we have. Just as every other "minority" group has.

David Saperstein says "We know all too well that hate crimes are different from other crimes. They are more than individual murders, beatings, and assaults. Rather, they seek to terrorize entire groups of Americans."

All hate crimes legally recognized and punished as such in the United States have one thing in common. Men can be victims of these crimes as individuals in a way that terrorizes the whole class of men sharing the same category as the victim and lowers their status as citizens. Yes, women may be included in the targeted category, but it is men whose constitutional entitlement to equal protection of the law compels the justice system to respond to their victimization.

During the early days of lobbying for the Hate Crimes Act and the Hate Crime Statistics Act that made the incidence of such terrorist crime visible in federal crime statistics,in a meeting of a coalition of civil rights advocacy organizations, a woman member spoke to the need to recognize rape as a hate crime that terrorizes all women, limits their freedom of movement, and demeans their status in the society. Unlike other types of assault, it should be recognized as a crime directed against the physical characteristic by which men view women as Other and inferior to themselves. If men rape men, the clear intent of the act is to demean them by treating them as women.

When this woman proposed legal acknowledgement that rape is over-qualified to be treated as a hate crime, a politically loaded act against women as a class, her male colleagues turned to her as one and protested that rape was merely a "sex" crime, not a hate crime! They urged, with the perverse logic of the dominant group, that the sheer volume of rapes would "dilute" the importance of real hate crimes, i.e. those that could hurt men. Moreover, they said, the bill would never pass if rape were included. And finally, they threatened that Senator Helms would attach an anti-abortion amendment to the Hate Crimes Act if women insisted on covering rape as a hate crime. The irony of using one weapon against women's reproductive organs to defend another seemed to escape their notice.

So, to this day, if a woman is raped by a man who calls her by the n-word, the k-word, or the d-word, that attack may be punished as a hate crime. But if the rapist merely calls her a b-word that is in common use everywhere, that is not a hate crime no matter how it damages her and the status of all women who get the message that merely by being a woman, she was "asking for it."

I would challenge David Saperstein to justify the exclusion of rape from punishment as a hate crime that advantages all men by permitting any woman to be terrorized and demeaned as an individual rather than as rape defines her - a member of "an entire group of Americans" that includes half of all Americans.

FARNAZ1MANSOURI1 - Your post indicates why religion certainly should be included. I'd like to be clearer about my previous post. What I had in mind when suggesting religion has a weaker claim to inclusion in hate crime legislation was the many forms of politicized religion - bigotry and intolerance that dons the mantle of religion to shield itself from criticism, not traditional religious identity handed down from parent to child.

Posted by: Dieterman | October 25, 2009 6:01 PM
--------------------------------
Thanks for your post. Actually, I wasn't thinking exclusively about religion, responding to your post, in particular.

The Shephard case was particularly horrible. The argument that gays should not be protected is, to my mind, strange. How many instances do we know of in which heterosexuals have been brutalized by marauding gays?

As for religious groups, all can be subject to criticism on the basis of doctrine, standard religious practices, surely. When it comes to other matters, the question becomes tricky.

One cannot accuse all Catholics, for instance, either of pedophilia or of participating in the shielding of pedophile priests.

One cannot accuse all AmeriChristians of the genocide of the AmerIndians, of the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis and Afghanis.

I cannot hold all Catholic parochial schools, let alone all Catholics, responsible for what a few girls did to my daughter.

I hope I'm making sense here. Hard to explain.

And what is your opinion, Mr Saperstein, of the hate crimes committed against the pPalestinians in Israel and the occupied territories? And what about people or entities who support, enable, or encourage Israel to commit these hate crimes?

Posted by: Kingofkings1
----------------------------------
First, this essay does not concern Palestinians and Israelis, but the United States hate crimes law.

However since you raise the issue, I would ask you this. What about the Palestinian hate crimes against Israeli civilians, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian?

The shooting of an eleven-year-old child in the head at point-blank range? The car and suicide bombings, store, street, and bus bombings with explosives laden with nails, etc., the numbers of Israelis without limbs, brain-injured, etc.

The so-called "burned boys" at Jerusalem University? Those young men who went to such lengths to protect Palestinians who subsequently blew them up that they will carry burn scars forever?

You can see bunches of them at the universities. You can see them all over Israel.
The bombing at Sbarro's, the expolsion at the Jerusalem University cafeteria, killing and maiming civilian Jews, Muslims, Christians?

continues below

Continued

Also, since you are so concerned about Muslims and Jews, in particular, your response to the following is requested:

The decimating of the Jewish communitites in Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Seria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, etc..

The Jews who had lived there since pre-Islamic times, who were driven out, murdered, tortured? Egypt now has four (4) Jews remaining. Egypt.

I am an Iranian Jew. When I was a child, our family friend, Ismael, was taken into custody by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and murdered in front of my sister and me. His blood spattered on my clothes.
------------------------------
But why, King, limit yourself to Muslims and Jews. How about Muslims and Christians.
Your thoughts on the persecution of the Coptic Christians by Muslim Egypt?

Of the four million Christian "sweepers" in Pakistan and Bangladesh, who are forced to clean out sewers with their hands?
-------------------------------
But why limit yourself to Christians and Muslims? How about Muslims and MUslims?

Your thoughts on Egypt shooting fleeing Sudanese Muslims in the back as they were attempting to cross over into tiny Israel? Doesn't Egypt have any space for these Sudanese? If not, is there a reason why they must murder them?
---------------------------------
But why limit yourself to Muslims and Muslims?

Let's get back to Christians and Muslims. Your thoughts on why the French Catholics have ghettoized the Algerian Muslims, placing them in "projects," camps, keeping them in poverty.

Your thoughts on the British AngloChristians and why they are ghettoizing and persecuting the Pakistani Muslims?
-------------------------
And the AmeriChristians? Why have they killed, maimed, tortured Iraqis and Afghanis for eight years?
------------------------

Are you a relative of Whistling? Of the Catholic school girls who knocked out my daughter's front teeth?

FARNAZ1MANSOURI1 - Your post indicates why religion certainly should be included. I'd like to be clearer about my previous post. What I had in mind when suggesting religion has a weaker claim to inclusion in hate crime legislation was the many forms of politicized religion - bigotry and intolerance that dons the mantle of religion to shield itself from criticism, not traditional religious identity handed down from parent to child.

And what is your opinion, Mr Saperstein, of the hate crimes committed against the pPalestinians in Israel and the occupied territories? And what about people or entities who support, enable, or encourage Israel to commit these hate crimes?

Whistling in the dark appears. Regardless of the issue, he will always appear with his anti-Jewish racism. Regardless of the topic, regardless of the author's race, religion, nationality, etc. And he will appear with anti-Jewish racism.
------------------
Look at Whistling in the dark, a fly of in service to the lord of flies. Think about the Catholic parochial school girls about whom I post below.

They could be relatives of Whistling.

Whine whine whine. Only Jews know about hate crimes, right? NO one else need talk about it.

Does Saperstein think Palestinians are the victims of hate crimes? And the American Jews who support the savage barage against Palestinians on their own land?

Who DID'nt ask for it and haven't been hated all over the world for their actions.

Do we have enough rabbis on these panels for 2% of the population, ya think?

I think it important to distinguish between hate crime and hate speech, although, depending upon the degree and quantity of the latter, it could lead not only to crime, but to rioting and genocide. It has. We all know that.

Where I live, there is a very large Catholic parochial school, whose students are want to hurl antisemitic epithets at any other children they think may be "Jewish." Interestingly, they do this only when they are in numbers much larger than their targets.

Although we are not religious, my then seven-year-old daughter was wearing a star of David, a gift from her aunt, one day two years ago while walking with her friend one block to our home.

A bunch of Catholic parochial school thugs ganged up on the two, called them "Christ killers," and knocked out my daughters' front teeth. I have no idea why I wasn't called immediately since she was carrying ID, but I first got to see her in the hospital, her shirt half covered with blood.

The hate speech to which these Catholic girls were daily exposed surely had an effect on their crime. These young, white Catholic girls were not born vicious racists, were they?
---------------------------
Yet, in very few instances, is hate speech or even hate indoctrination prosecutable. What can be prosecuted is hate violence. There was a period in this country's history when an African American attacking a white for the "crime" of being white was viewed as a political act.

There is an equivalent perspective on the world scene today that involves two other groups. In neither case was and is there justification. In this country, today, and I say this to all of you who are concerned about hate-motivated violence directed by minority folk at majority, a hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of the status of the criminal.

I wonder at the defense of hate rights. Hate away. No one will bother you, unless you act with violence or provoke it.

Which of these things, these categories that will now be covered by federal hate crime law, is not like the other - race, religion or sexual orientation? The answer is - religion. Religious belief is chosen. Race and sexual orientation are not. Or are those straight conservatives frothing at the mouth over the addition of sexual orientation ready to declare that they merely chose to be heterosexual? I doubt it. The only choice gay people have in a homophobic society is whether or not to lead honest lives and, last I checked, leading a deceitful and dishonest life was not considered a moral virtue by anyone. I'm not advocating for the exclusion of religion (though it would be fun to see all the ostensible opponents of hate crime legislation scream bloody murder if a liberal politician were to propose THAT), but being ultimately a choice it does have a weaker argument for inclusion than race and sexual orientation. As for the ridiculous argument that this new category amounts to some sort of "special protection" for gay Americans, well, the category is sexual orientation, not homosexual orientation. That gay people are hardly known to commit crimes based on antipathy toward heterosexuality is obviously and utterly beside the point and they would face the same additional penalties if they were to.

To ussamsarmy:
A minor point on his contention that the Washington Post is putting Michelle Bachmann "on a pedestal." It was George Will, not the Washington Post, who was putting undeserved praise on Ms. Bachmann (or is it Wackmann or Eichmann?). My perception of the Post is that it has always been considered a liberal paper, in spite of featuring Will, Krauthammer and other conservative columnists. These throwbacks get better treatment than their liberal counterparts do in conservative papers.

Those who claim that homosexuality is a immoral lifestyle are simply ignorant of the current research in this area. A simple search of scholar.google.com shows that of the thousands of articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, almost all show that being gay or lesbian is physiologically based, much like race or many forms of disabilities. And those two, unlike same sex attraction, are protected by hate crime legislation. So what is the difference between what happened to Matthew Shepard and other gays and the lynchings and other hate crimes directed against blacks and other minority groups?

well isn't this just dumb.
you can kill a person but if you call him a dirty jew - wow that makes it different.
No it doesn't. Crime is crime. beat a person - he gets sentenced for the beating.
and there is such a large difference in how to prosecute.
a black beats up a white and calls him a dirty white boy - no hate crime - a white beats a black and calls him a dirty black boy - well that is a hate crime.
how about a black beating a black and calling him an uncle tom - hate crime - sure sounds hateful to me - but what difference does it make.
jail those who commit crimes and forget if they cuss at someone or call them a bad name.
BUT HERE IS THE RUB - THE FEDS DONT NEED IT!
just about every crime that the feds have is also a crime in the states.
so just eliminate everything that is covered by state law too. but that would mean the marxist left will not be able to insert themselves into our daily lives at every opportunity.
how about a lesser include crime of hate - how about additional punishment for a strong dislike - or additional punishment for feeling hate in their hearts even if they never express it - or if the criminal white just adding more punishment because some time in their past they might have had a relative that also might have hated in their hearts.
dumb.

Okay, Dotherightthing... This isn't about "protecting" one group over another. Any group, majority or minority, is protected under this statute if their group status is the basis for the crime.

Try not to think about it in terms of the victim, but rather, what our community is expressing about the morality of certain conduct. Unless you believe there is some kind of moral good in racial prejudice...

And you can go around hating straight people as long as you want. Just don't make that the reason you commit a crime against one. If so, you will be subject to a greater penalty, because our society says that prejudice and hatred are bad things.

That is why the Constitution forbids the government from invalidating the test scores for white firefighters who score better than minority ones. Its a bad thing for the government to take actions on the basis of race. So if the City of New Haven gets punished for discriminatng against whites on the basis of their race, why can't a person be punished for assaulting a victim on the basis of their race (or gender, or sexual orientation?) By doing so, aren't we as a society saying that discrimination, prejudice and hatred are bad things?

If you disagree, then tell me, who is harmed by this statute, and what is the nature of the harm?

Hate-crimes legislation is aimed at punishing certain thought patterns, not actions. Hopefully, a conviction will be successfully appealed on some level and this legal insanity will be stricken from the law books.

Wonderful. First sentence this gets commentary about anti-Semitism. Why bother reading the rest?

"Hate crimes are different" To that, I say, "BULLPOOP". A violent crime is a violent crime, simple as that. It matters little to me that the victim is elderly, a child, a Jew, a Mexican, rich, poor, or some random poor schmuck who was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. To say that a violent crime is special just because the victim is a member of some minority or another is to elevate that group above the level of "citizen". We need to protect ALL citizens. The fact that some people feel special status need to be attached to these (many) minorities is an indication that we don't take either crime or violence seriously enough to start with. A murderer who serves 5 years in prison, only to be paroled to murder again is inexcusable - even if his victim was some dirt poor white guy in Alabama. Hate crimes? The concept undermines the US constitution. ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL! If you want to give life without parole for murdering anyone at all - then we must see life without parole for the murder of ALL CITIZENS. Jews ain't special. Women ain't special. Gays ain't special. Children ain't special. One body, one citizen, one vote. Protect us all equally, or you are nothing but hypocrites.

How does this criminalize thought itself? To be convicted you must (a) commit a criminal act then (b) with a specific intent that (c) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Step (c) requires some evidence of an intent to commit the act based on racial prejudice. How exactly is this "unfair"? Who does this "unfairly" target? What "rights" are lost? The "right" to act upon one's prejudice by committing a crime against someone else? And how does this provide "extra" rights to one group of "victim's" over another? If a white, straight male is targeted because of his race, gender or sexual orientation, that crime would be punishable under this statute. Does "the bump" deny this? If not (which the bump cannot) then why is "the bump" up in arms about this legislation? Should a white person fear to go into certain neighborhoods because they might be targeted because of their race? Isn't that anti-american? Shouldn't the government express its moral code of conduct through criminalizing acts that do not conform? Don't most criminal laws do that already? (i.e. if you kill someone, without the appropriate level of "thought" you are guilty of manslaughter v. 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree murder). Can't courts sentence offenders to death based on aggravating factors such as the motive behind the crime? In fact, didn't the supreme court, including Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, say that the 1st amendment is NOT violated by enhancing a criminal defendant's sentence based on the fact that the Defendant chose his victim because he was white? "The bump" should maybe read Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 US 476 (1993).

Then, you have Michelle Bachmann, the homophobe representative from Minnesota who was lauded in George Will's most recent column for positions deemed not only reasonable, but admirable.

He didn't mention her gay hysteria, but even more astounding and shocking he ignored her spearheading a drive, primarily on the FOX network, against the U.S. Census. Her attacks with the help of Glen Beck, who stated it would be ACORN workers coming to your door to take the census have led to murder.

A substitute school teacher and Boy Scout leader was lynched in Kentucky in September. The last I heard, a couple of weeks ago, the FBI is investigating whether the man's death was an accident, suicide or homocide.

The man had his ankles and wrists taped. He was gagged and had the word "Fed" scrawled on his chest. His treatment on par with Mathew Shepherd for whom the hate crime bill is named.

Not in my lifetime, and probably not in the history of the U.S. Census, which dates to one year after the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, has such hate been directed at this valuable information gathering tool or the people who go door to door in service to our country. Not at least until Michelle Bachmann generated this intolerance. Yet, no one calls her on it. She gets put on a pedestal by the Nation's newspaper, the Washington Post, instead.

Fear and hate mongering is abhorant, but it is especially so when our media disregards it, and legislators like Michelle Bachmann expouse it on national television.

We find the topic in columns like this one, but the dominant media would rather spend weeks on the death of Michael Jackson, days on a boy not in a ballon, or doing special reports on an unsolved beating and death of a kid in Chicago caught on video, which was getting shown 24/7.

Unfortunately, I have not seen one column on the death of Bill Sparkman, the census taker and victim of a hate crime. A hate crime spawned by a legislator and an enabling media.

America may be moving forward in some ways, but it is also taking giant steps backwards in others.

thebump wrote, "We choose our behavior, and we choose (or refuse) to label ourselves."

Indeed. That has never been at issue. You, however, claimed that being gay was itself a behavior.

I knew I was "different" when I was a kid, long before I knew the name for it and certainly long before I knew that some people thought it was a "behavior." Once I was a teenager, and read about human sexuality, it didn't take a genius to figure out that they were describing me. It certainly wasn't something I asked for or welcomed or "decided." I did an awful lot of praying for an awful lot of years--and I was completely celibate the entire time.

Sexual orientation is no more a "behavior" than being near-sighted or colorblind-- or a math genius is. It's a trait, one which I neither chose nor welcomed. I spent many years of my life praying that it would "go away." It didn't.

What did go away was my acceptance of many of the common myths about what it means to be gay-- and a realization that I was a good person who happened to be gay. If you think it's an "ideology" or a political position, well, not sure that my reality has any overlap with yours on this topic. It simply wasn't, for me--if it had been, I would now be heterosexual.

thebump wrote, "Regardless, the larger point is why, if Victim A is entitled to more justice than Victim B, anyone can claim we still have equal justice — especially when that preference is based solely on politics and ideology."

First, a bit of a disclaimer: I am not convinced that Hate Crime legislation does much of anything, except perhaps antagonize people like you--people who might be natural allies of ALL innocent people, including innocent gay people.

That said, I don't believe that Hate Crime legislation is about the victims. The dead victim of a gay bashing is dead no matter what the legislation is that makes that bashing a crime. The victim is dead even if he or she isn't actually gay!

Whether effective or not, Hate Crime legislation is about prosecutors and law enforcement. It's designed to put one more arrow in the quiver of those who are supposed to go after criminals. That's all. If it helps members of a neighborhood sleep more soundly at night, great.

But I honestly don't see it as creating special rights for groups. It IS about making sure that all groups are protected--and it singles out categories of crimes where there is historic evidence of lack of the will or the means of going after them.

I have never in my lifetime witnessed such hate, anger, intolerance by some of the American people, and, some politicians.
It is very frightening and any steps taken to make people accountable for criminal behavior is a step in the right direction.
This is our United States of America and this is not what we represent.
We can no longer support or accept those who incite such tactics.
Of course, the media is a big factor as they sensationalize, headline the few who are making it so difficult for us all.

Again, the fundamental question is: Who DOES deserve to be bashed to a bloody pulp? Precisely which victims deserve LESS justice?

Unless there is a rational answer to those questions, there is no rational basis for distinguishing between victims.

We choose our behavior, and we choose (or refuse) to label ourselves.

Regardless, the larger point is why, if Victim A is entitled to more justice than Victim B, anyone can claim we still have equal justice — especially when that preference is based solely on politics and ideology.

thebump--

Sorry that I got your login "handle" wrong in my previous post! My apologies.

mybump:

With respect, my main point was that you turned a discussion of Hate Crimes into one of whether gay people were "moral" or "immoral" and claimed, wrongly, that I am gay as a "behavior"--as though that too were relevant to the question of Hate Crime legislation.

In a society where innocent (let me repeat the word: innocent) gay people are vilified and where young men in gangs go into neighborhoods where gay people are known to live or socialize and bash them to bloody pulps, I don't see why we are arguing about whether I am gay by "choice" (I am not) or whether I am "immoral" or not (for the record, I strive to lead a moral, responsible life, and see no evidence that I am less successful at it than my heterosexual counterparts).

Ricklinguist, you completely ignored my main point — except to the extent that you perhaps unintentionally support my main point with your comment that "a just society doesn't quibble over the details of injustice."

Your friend hipshot tips its hand when it says, "Here is where we are going... No intolerance will be tolerated." As defined by hipshot, naturally. So don't tell me the aim is not to criminalize thought, and don't bother telling me it does not fundamentally change what this country is about.

Thebump said, "Same-sex attraction is not remotely analogous to race."

A bit of a strawman, don't you think? Religion is not remotely analogous to race, either.

Yet throughout history, people have been vilified and attacked and even killed on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation.

Injustice isn't a contest.

Gay people have lost their jobs, been kicked out of the military, been attacked, even killed, because of the strong animus many in our society harbor against them.

They used to subject gay people to electroshock therapy to "cure" them.

Gay couples have been separated because the Immigration Service doesn’t acknowledge their relationship. I have seen the pain that policy causes.

Gay parents have lost custody of their own children when other family members have challenged their “fitness” to be parents in court. That too has created unimaginable pain and suffering.
Injustice isn't a contest.

Black people weren't cremated by the millions. And Jewish kids don't have to fear telling their parents that they are Jewish.

A just society doesn't quibble over the details of injustice. Instead, it works on the problem and strives to make the society more just. For all.

OOPs....one word changes everything....

Here is where we should be: America is a country of tolerance. We come to our tolerance through reasoned decision and public debate. However, we dont't carry it to exremes (we use common sense).

Here is where we are going: America is a country of tolerance. No intolerance will be tolerated. We will implement this policy through whatever means we have at our disposal, including the legal system.

Here is where we should be: America is a country of tolerance. We come to our tolerance through reasoned decision and public debate. However, we dont't carry it to exremes (we use common sense).

Here is where we are going: America is a country of tolerance. No intolerance will not be tolerated. We will implement this policy through whatever means we have at our disposal, including the legal system.

Needless to say, Ricklinguist's comment that no one deserves to be "gay bashed" begs the question as to what kind of bashing IS deserved. Precisely who is worthy of LESS protection than a victim of "gay bashing"?

Fill in the blank: What happened to Matthew Shepard would have been less heinous, and the perpetrators should have received lesser punishment, if the victim were _____________.

Same-sex attraction is not remotely analogous to race. There is no Jim Crow system of justice for those who are perceived to be same-sex attracted.

This measure is pure theater, albeit with regrettable consequences. And note well that the Democrat majority could not pass it on a standalone basis — for good reason.

Thebump wrote, "Homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle, not a personal characteristic. "

With respect, apart from being irrelevant, it's also wrong.

There are gay people who are promiscuous in their sexual behavior, just as their are promiscuous heterosexuals. There are also gay people who are completely celibate, just as their are celibate heterosexuals--I was completely celibate for much of my life, but gay, and I know a number of celibate priests, both gay and straight.

And there are gay people in lifelong, committed, loving, devoted monogamous relationships. I know. I have been in one for many years.

To describe my being gay as either a "lifestyle" or "immoral" --or for that matter, a "choice"-- is to completely misrepresent reality.

Regardless, no one deserves to be "gay bashed"--whether they are promiscuous, monogamous, celibate, or heterosexual but thought to be gay.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

This measure is unnecessary, profoundly un-American — and just stupid.

Homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle, not a personal characteristic. The concept of "gender identity" is nothing but a preposterous fiction, the product of a radical and stupid ideology.

Crime is crime and all citizens should have equal protection. Creating a special class and punishing thought are repugnant.

RWOLF01 wrote:

hipshot wrote:
"From the first day we watch TV, through college education and beyond, we are bombarded with the virtues of diversity and the dangers of questioning diversity. There is huge societal pressure to conform."
Um, try reading that

============

Thanks for reading my posting. My friends call me "Hip." So please, from now on, remember, I'm Hip.

Here is the answer: conform to the mantra of diversity, which pervades our society. I could explain further but I am sure you understood from the beginning.

A reasonable analysis, for a change. Thank you. Interesting how conservatives, including nearly every Republican in Congress (almost unanimously in opposition to these additional categories), never made the least effort to repeal the longstanding existing hate crime legislation that includes categories like race and religion, even when they controlled both Houses under Bush, but go into a frenzy of lies and distortions at the thought of the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity. I wonder why that might be. Here's a wild guess - they don't want the federal government sending the message that crimes motivated by hatred on this basis (in practice that means against gay and transgendered people) might not be OK, because that suggests the hatred itself might not be such a great thing. Of course, the hatred itself and its expression in speech are not and never could actually be made criminal offenses (the federal Constitution rightly protects against that). Such thought and its expression in speech never once have been prosecuted in all these years that the other categories have been on the books and anyone who didn't sleep through high school civics class should be able to see through that bit of rank conservative fear-mongering.

Sic Transit Gloria, The United States Constitution:

Ironic indeed to see a post in which the poster claims to see “NO PROBLEMS” [my emphasis] with or the application of laws which in effect require that the jury read the mind of the defendant at the moment of attack, by ex post facto application of his prior statements as evidence of guilt in the case at bar. Kind of like proving that a driver ran a red light by proving that he ran one before.

It is also instructive that the poster writes that HE has seen no “INAPPROPRIATE” convictions, which tacitly assumes that he one has personal knowledge of each and every case which has been tried, and that the legal standard of review is his personal version of “inappropriateness” rather than the rule of law as established by the United States Constitution.

Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington et al must be writhing in their graves.

"democrats want to criminalize thought." True if your thoughts are to bomb abortion clinics, murder Matthew Sheppard or take down the twin towers. You can include parents that kill their children that don't religiously conform. It is in the Bible and should be part of our laws does not fly when science (evolution) and morality (Deuteromy slaughter and concubines) say it should not.

CHATARD: That evidence still is seen by a jury, the people we give in this great country the duty of determining whether there is evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, as it should be in America. I see no problems here, and in looking at states who have enacted hate crimes laws I see no pattern of inappropriate convictions.

ROHITCUNY: You say "But I am not sure about the wisdom of saying that harming a gay person is somehow worse than harming a straight person." If that were the law being proposed, I would agree with you, but it doesn't. A court and jury have to decide there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to commit the violent felony involved as a result of their sex, race, orientation, whatever. Existing hate crimes laws in many states already exist like this, and we don't see a widespread presumption that every female victim is a hate crime victim, those prosecutions seem to be well limited to cases where there is substantial evidence of intent.

I also had, years back, concern that the harm done to someone didn't depend on their race, sex, etc., if you beat up someone just as hard, why was one worse? The answer is well-presented above, in the case where you intentionally assault someone because they are gay, you threaten (assault) the rest of the gay community. That additional harm has been studied, is measured, and reflects a real harm that seems, to me, to reflect the need for an additional penalty.

Please note that proponents always say that nothing in these acts prohibits free speech. What they do not tell you is that in order to convict a person of a hate crime, one of two things must be presented a. the offense was committed against a person in a protected class, prima facie evidence of hate, or b. if the tryer in the case is unlikely to be swayed solely on prima facie fact, evidence of defendant's prior statements, writings or facial expressions will be brought in, will be admitted and will form the basis for conviction.

As a minister who preaches every week, or more often, I have no fears of this legislation as to constraining what I can say from the pulpit. I can take any text I want, and I can say what I want about that text. That is my protected right (as it is the protected right of my congregation to fire me...depending on the denomination, actually fire me, or withdraw so much support that I will conclude my ministry is impossible at that location, and chose to leave) under the current laws of the land. Those rights come from the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution. The hate crimes legislation currently on the books poses no threat to these rights, nor does the proposed change to the legislation.

The difference between a hate crime is that a crime is usually perpetrated for individual sorts of reasons: I attack whomever for economic gain, because I don't like someone, or even, such as in the case of a serial killer, because such crimes give me some sorts of thrill. In short, the victim is generally chosen because of the desires of the person who commits the crime. Whether that choice is rational or not is often questionable.

Hate crimes are not only directed against a person, but the one commiting the crime feels a certain degree of immunity from prosecution because of who the victim is. The person commiting the crime has reason to believe that the authorities will not prosecute the crime as vigorously as they might otherwise. In non-"hate crimes" if you will, the victim is considered a valuable member of society. As such, the criminal can expect that the police will seek vigorously to solve the crime, and the DA will prosecute. BUT, the victims who are parts of groups under hate crime protection often are NOT considered valuable members of society, sometimes by police who, like everyone else, have their own prejudices and beliefs, and sometimes by the wider community. This is what gives the criminal a sense of power over the victim.

Let's not use the case of GLBT people, as that is a group whose status in the community is changing at present. Let's go back a hundred years. How many western movies and tv shows have we all seen where the "dirty injun" was the victim, and were dismissed as "just another injun" whose deaths were barely noticed, and no great effort was made to find their murderer? Or, if the "injun" was the perpetrator, the posse would quickly form and ride out of town all righteously intent on "getting justice". Unless the show was about some forward thinking exemplary member of the community (The Cartwrights in Bonanza, for instance) who would, against the odds, see that innocent indians (because this was when "indian" was considered a perfectly good descriptor for this group) were avenged and true justice done.

Fast forward to the present. Native Americans are still a group that is royally discriminated against in the community in many parts of our country. Native American kids are often dealt harshly with by the schools when they violate the rules, many Native Americans don't bother pressing cases in some areas, because they know it will be futile. They live constricted lives, because their whole experience has taught them that if they are to live peaceably in the "white man"s world, they must accept a second class status. Any non-Native American who lives around Native American reservations, and who is at all perceptive knows that this is true. It is often not blatant, but it is there, and Native Americans have a different calculus of success and failure, of what is obtainable than their non-Native American neighbors.

Don't agree with this? Well, let's take a current example, again, dealing with Native Americans. The football team in the part of the country where the Washington Post is published has as a team nickname, a name that many Native Americans find offensive. The owner, who is NOT Native Americans has tried several arguments to avoid having to change the team name, because there's a lot of recognition and financial value to the current name, colors, fight song (The only NFL team that has one, as far as I know), etc. His stated objection to the efforts to force the team to change its name is that "when the team took the name, it was seen as honoring Native Americans, for their warrior strength and courage". Well, I'll buy for a moment that the original team owner may have had that in mind. At the beginning of the 20th century, that might even have been true. But at the beginning of the 20th century, the polite terms for African Americans was "colored" and "Negro", and the "n-word" was freely used. Times change. What Native Americans might not have been able to object to a century ago is no longer the case. And yet, they are not taken seriously by the team owner. Would this team owner try and tell his African American players that the "n-word" was meant affectionately? I don't think so. Would he dare to tell them they ought not to be concerned? I don't think so. Some of those guys are 6ft 4 and taller and weigh nearly 400 pounds. Dan Snyder is a relatively little guy. But, he is comfortable telling Native Americans they ought to simply accept what many find offensive because of what Dan Snyder [may] thinks its an honorable name. Why is it that Native Americans cannot force the team to change their name? Is it perhaps because they know they won't prevail against the majority in society? That the larger society doesn't see that they have a right to their own self-designation? Their rights are only what the majority will allow.

Using this example may make it easier to understand why it is necessary to protect some groups with hate crime legislation. It is because some groups cannot rely on the larger society to take their needs and desires into account. If your rights are only good when no one wants to take them away, then you really have no rights.

When Native Americans - or GLBT community members- have rights--to be free from assault or other violence only if the larger community decides to act on their behalf, their rights are tenuous at best. We all know about he civil rights movement, and why it was necessary. And after a long struggle, the situation for African Americans has changed for the better. The chance of dying for voting have greatly receded; the changes of being assaulted if a black man talks with a white women on the street are mostly non-existent (unless there are other crimes involved, like sexual assault). In the pre-Civil Rights era, African Americans could be killed with immunity. Now, however, after a long and hard struggle, the situation has changed greatly for the better. But that is not yet true for the GLBT community. In many parts of our communities in America, GLBTs must keep a low profile because of the ramifications of being known to be a member of the GLBT community increase the risk of violence. That risk circumscribes the lives of people in the community. If you must self-censor your speech, if you cannot dress as you choose, if you are perceived as a threat because you are different, you choose your words carefully, you live under pretence; perhaps not all the time, but often enough.

This is why hate crimes are hate crimes...because the unspoken dangers in the target communities are enough that people cannot be free to pursue that which they define as happiness. And because the victims from these target communities cannot be confident that if they ARE victims, they will receive equal justice. That's why we need the ability to make sure that a community which declines to seek justice for minorities who are not favored in the larger communities can be compelled to do justice. Or else the national community, in our names, WILL.

Hate crimes serve to intimidate others. They cause division and frustration and anger and fear to fester. And whenever one person in the community is victimized, every other member is reminded, AGAIN, that they could be next.

I would hate to live like that. I wouldn't want my neighbor to live like that either.

hipshot wrote:
"From the first day we watch TV, through college education and beyond, we are bombarded with the virtues of diversity and the dangers of questioning diversity. There is huge societal pressure to conform."

Um, try reading that again slowly... How can one conform to diversity?

Well, Mr Saperstein, it seems your critics took what you said, turned it around 180degrees, and twisted it into massive falsehoods.

I have long said we should change all hate crime laws to anti-terrorism laws, since that is what hate crimes really are.

To all who claim that hate crime laws are unnecessary because we already have laws against assault and murder...

You are saying Sept 11, 2001, the World trade center and pentagon attacks were nothing more than 3000 counts of murder.

We have had many times that many murders since then.

We remember when this law was written back in the beginning of the constitution of the United States of America.

Did it go somewhere?

Hate crime legislation is another effort to enforce a politically correct compendium of thought and speech.

Its supporters hold the belief that such prosecutions are so needed and sufficiently efficacious as to warrant violating the First Amendment proscription against censorship of speech which they appear to hold with the fervor of the recently converted, always claiming that their case justifies the exception. We have lately seen that kind of mentality acted out by the supporters of Roman Polanski who believe that he shouldn’t be subject Califirnia's law against sodomy of a thirteen year old girl because he’s an artist.

As reprehensible as it is, the Constitution protects virulent speech from censorship or prosecution based on its content. If anyone needs a reminder I suggest they look at the Alien and Sedition Acts, under which newspaper editors were successfully prosecuted by the Adams Administration for speaking out against His administration.

The KKK can burn crosses, and parade down Constitution Avenue; the NAZIs can march too. Right wing religious zealots can verbally and by sign intimidate people entering an abortion clinic. This is fair game as long as the intimidation remains only verbal.

In a criminal prosecution intent relates solely to the issue of whether or not the defendant intended the result of his act. It is not nor should it to be conflated with the “reason” the person perpetrated the act because that implies that some “reasons” can be exculpatory and others not and all it takes is an act of Congress to create any number of exceptions it deems appropriate. Sic Transit Gloria the First Amendment!

But don’t try to explain that to the thought Poliezi.

moose6 wrote, "Motive in crimes and Intent in crimes are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT."

I am trying to understand this--not questioning the accuracy of your statement.

Is burning a piece of paper (say,an ad you received in the mail) on someone's front lawn treated the same or differently from burning a cross under the law, and if so, is that because of motive or intent?

Thanks.

"I was brutally attacked and almost murded a number of years ago because of the fact that I am a rich. He knew this because i lived in a nice house, drove a nice car, and wore nice clothes. I was attacked and almost had my life taken away from me and my family, was because my attacker hated the fact that I made more money than him.

MrAdams, what is the difference between your account and the snippet i posted?"

I seriously doubt your attacker attacked you to send a message that rich people wouldn't be tolerated in the neighborhood. Or that rich people were less equal than him.

The crime against you was a crime of economic opportunity. He didn't attack you because you were rich. He attacked you for economic opportunity - to get your money and stuff.

Whereas when gays or blacks are attacked because of who they are it's often to send a message to that gay or black person and to all others. It's a message of intimidation.

That would be the difference.

Saperstein gives the hate criminals too much credit. In America, terrorizing a community just strenthens the resolve of that community and the empathy it receives from the rest of the citizenry.

Its how all the different groups rub up against each other that makes this an interesting country.

Nirvana is always just one more law away.

Just another step towards the left's ultimate goal of banning major parts of the Bible.

The Bible does not feel threatened; the more people who break it fight it, the more certain we believers are that we are right.

I don't know how this legislation is written, but it seems pretty clear its indirect intent is to control speech and thought in America.

From the first day we watch TV, through college education and beyond, we are bombarded with the virtues of diversity and the dangers of questioning diversity. There is huge societal pressure to conform. Apparently that isn't enough control.

The perfect world you seek will require laws on top of laws on top of laws.

Hate crimes are different. Hate crimes are not just against an individual but against a specific group of people. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism to intimidate a whole class of people not just an individual. There is a difference between arson and cross burning. To say there is not is to ignore the history of discrimination in this country.

David Saperstein asks: Is this necessary? Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime? and then goes on to explain why he believes that it is.

I ask what's next? adding Class standings? Make it a hate crime to rob some one who has more money then me? Laws and punishment should be a deterrent from committing a crime. Not a tool for politicians to get re-elected. If I hate Albino Zeus worshipers, that's my right. as an American. to have my beliefs that all Albino Zeus worshipers should be hated. but that belief does not give me the right to commit any crimes against them. That's why there are laws against committing crimes.

We should have Minimum and Maximum penalties for every crime. but that should be decided after we determine "IF" they did it. Jurors should be deciding if the accused is innocent or guilty and that's it, not why they did it if they did it.

*Rant Off*

Motive in crimes and Intent in crimes are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. the severity in crimes are determined from intent or "culpable mindset". Thats what can make the difference between A capital crime, First degree crime, second degree crime. Was your intent to kill the person, vs. was your intent to inflict bodily harm but the person dies anyways. Motive is not how that is determined. Motive is why the person commited the crime. Not the intent of the outcome of that crime.

They are different things. So those that are saying we determine the severity of a crime already because of motive need to do a little more learning on the subject.

I agree with Rabbi Saperstein, and the overwhelming majority of Americans and law enforcement professionals who support this hate crimes bill. Now, regarding the misperceptions of this law reflected in the comments of other readers:

1.) THE HATE CRIMES LAW PROTECTS ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY: Gay AND STRAIGHT alike, CHRISTIAN and Jewish and people of all faiths and races alike. That's right -- if someone is physically attacked just because they are a Christian, or just because they are straight -- the hate crimes law protects them.

So the notion that this law somehow puts one group of Americans ahead of any other is simply false. Even though hate violence occurs more frequently against "minority" than "majority" populations, the CRUCIAL point is that the law protects members of the majority in exactly the same way as it protects members of the minority, on those more rare occasions when the hate violence is directed at the majority rather than the minority person. Again, THE LAW PROTECTS ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY.

2.) THE HATE CRIMES LAW TARGETS VIOLENCE ONLY (NOT SPEECH OR THOUGHT). It's interesting to me that -- while the law protects people of all faiths from physical attacks based on their RELIGION -- none of the opponents of the bill has falsely claimed that such protection would somehow infringe on the free speech rights of religious leaders to preach that their religious beliefs are correct while others are incorrect. For example, no one has said this law would keep pastors from preaching their beliefs that Christianity is the correct religion and that some other religion is not.

Yet somehow, only when it comes to the fact that sexual orientation is also included in this law, opponents mistakenly claim that religious leaders' free speech rights would be affected. NOT TRUE!

People can think, preach and speak for or against whatever they like about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, homosexuality, heterosexuality, or anything else. THEY JUST CAN'T PHYSICALLY ATTACK OUR FELLOW AMERICANS BECAUSE OF IT. Again, there is a difference between thought and free speech on the one hand and criminal physical violence on the other.

3.) Some opponents say "crime is crime" and we shouldn't be looking at motive. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MOST, PERHAPS ALL, OF OUR LAWS ALREADY DO. If it were not appropriate for our laws to take MOTIVE into account, then there would be no legal distinction between manslaughter and 1st- or 2nd-degree murder. So it is perfectly appropriate to look at motive with regard to whether a crime is a hate crime, just as it is appropriate to take motive into account when it comes to our other laws.

4.) THE HATE CRIMES LAW PROTECTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. The fact is that the hate crimes law protects all Americans from VIOLENCE (not speech) based on religion, sexual orientation, race, and other categories. By protecting people of ALL FAITHS from violence targeting their religion -- and by specifically protecting freedom of speech -- this law actually ADVANCES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY in our country.

Yes, that's right, far from being a threat to religious liberty as opponents falsely claim, the hate crimes law is in fact just the opposite. THE HATE CRIMES LAW PROTECTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN AMERICA, one of our nation's most deeply cherished fundamental values.

Thank God President Obama and Congress have demonstrated the common sense, fair-mindedness, sound judgment, and common decency to enact this sensible crime-fighting bill to protect all American families equally.

Pertinent to LEEPEFLEY1's comment. There have been relatively recent and widespread instances of state law authorities refusing to investigate crimes. Namely, the southern states during the civil rights struggle, but the federal authorities were limited in their power to intervene.

Mr. Adams said:I was brutally attacked and almost murdered many years ago. The one and only reason I was attacked and almost had my life taken away from me and my family, was because my attacker hated the fact that I am gay. Of this I am certain because I had known my attacker my whole life. GLBT people are attacked and deprived of liberty in other ways not because of who we are, but because of the hatred in someone else's heart over who we are. So in that regard, yes we are singled out specifically, so a law which deters and punishes on the basis of that specificity is long overdue, and is absolutely welcomed. If you perpetrate a violent crime against an innocent person simply because you hate something specific about that person that millions of other people share with that person, then that's a hate crime and should be punished as such. The law absolutely will not prevent religious people from spewing unwarranted religious hatred against us, but hopefully it will keep them from attacking us. And -- Constitutional rights ARE special, and we want ours.

********************************

I was brutally attacked and almost murded a number of years ago because of the fact that I am a rich. He knew this because i lived in a nice house, drove a nice car, and wore nice clothes. I was attacked and almost had my life taken away from me and my family, was because my attacker hated the fact that I made more money than him.

MrAdams, what is the difference between your account and the snippet i posted? The only difference is the THOUGHT of why the attack occurred. That is the issue MOST people have with hate crime legislation of any type. Be it due to race, religion, etc. etc.

The act of assault, murder etc. is already criminalized. It should be bothersome to most that the government can enhance a crime and make it more serious because of a thought be it real or perceived. It sets us down a path that if continued, could lead to very bad things.

And before I'm called a homophobe. I do believe that same sex couples should be granted the legal rights of any other couple. I believe in equal rights for all. I just dont believe in government having more power to punish over real or perceived thoughts.

Your milage may vary.

In Phoenix Arizona a news story broke about a Muslim man who ran his daughter and her friend over with a car for defying him. Women age 20 still have no voice or power, but are supposed to be property according to her 48 year old father. If you dress like an American woman you are in the wrong Country to do that....the USA.

Bring the troops home, and have them sort newbie allegiances to this Country's culture and our laws. If they don't make the cut.... throw them out.

Women to Islam are pieces of furniture, to be bought, sold, traded, abused , and destroyed.

Of course hate crimes should be treated as different. We punish criminals in rough proportion to the harm they intend to cause and the harm they do cause. Since hate-criminals pick a victim knowing him or her to be particularly vulnerable, and they do so precisely because of that vulnerability, they clearly intend and do cause greater harm.

It's like the difference between punching someone in the chest and punching him, intentionally, in his broken ribs. One is battery, they other attempted murder. Intend greater harm, cause greater harm, commit a greater crime.

Commit a greater crime, have a greater punishment due.

Do we know that, for historical reasons, some groups are more vulnerable to particular harms? Yes. Do we hope, one day, that they'll no longer be so vulnerable? Yes.

Thought-Police are portrayed in the book "1984", and we are almost there. I am not so worried about whether or not anyone believes the Holocaust happened(there are photos), but I am concerned with the hatred of White Christians and the desire to make laws to punish those who don't think the "appropriate" way.

I [WE] always taught the KINDa's not to utter the word "HATE". i.e., do not say Hate this hate that LaLaLa. Best to avoid using that [nasty] word in everyday lingo, less the Tango.

Note: Congress needs to not-FIX what's not Broken!

Congress needs to Create JOBS JOBS JOBS; or else Hate Legislation will not Help America when people rebel ahainst the Malitia here!

Congress needs to Correct their own mis-Orientations, if any!

I deplore crime however hate crime legislation creates more problems than it solves. It seems that every minority screams the discrimination card at every opportunity. The Gates controversy comes to mind.

I was brutally attacked and almost murdered many years ago. The one and only reason I was attacked and almost had my life taken away from me and my family, was because my attacker hated the fact that I am gay. Of this I am certain because I had known my attacker my whole life. GLBT people are attacked and deprived of liberty in other ways not because of who we are, but because of the hatred in someone else's heart over who we are. So in that regard, yes we are singled out specifically, so a law which deters and punishes on the basis of that specificity is long overdue, and is absolutely welcomed. If you perpetrate a violent crime against an innocent person simply because you hate something specific about that person that millions of other people share with that person, then that's a hate crime and should be punished as such. The law absolutely will not prevent religious people from spewing unwarranted religious hatred against us, but hopefully it will keep them from attacking us. And -- Constitutional rights ARE special, and we want ours.

Robert2008 wrote:
"Saperstein and the democrats want to criminalize thought. Voters should tell them a resounding no thanks."

--------

Bob, no need to fear, your tinhat will keep you safe.

"...the Act will allow the federal government to intervene..."

Ah yes, that's what we need. The states just can't be trusted to do the right thing, but the Feds, ah the Feds, they're so good and sweet, don't you know, and can be trusted to overlook the 10th amendment (and every other part of the Bill of Rights.)
I hit my mother over the head and I get six months. I hit a neocon over the head, I get five years. Totalitarianism by 2015.

Saperstein has a point. The trouble starts when we start with noble speeches like "Hate crimes are nothing less than attacks on those values that are the pillars of our republic and the guarantors of our freedom." For people who are punished under the law might not BE people who want to attack "those values..." They might simply be people who got mad at someone for some reason or another.

For an analogy, most of us agree that sexual harrassment is bad. But it can happen that a friendly gesture like putting your hand on someone's shoulder can be "perceived as" sexual harrassment and the person making the friendly gesture could end up losing his job. Social relations are harmed by this sort of puritanism.

Actually women also make such gestures all the time, and call people "dearie", but women tend not to be punished for things for which a man might well be punished.
That too is wrong, but tends to be overlooked. No one should be punished for an innocent gesture. But to return to the original topic:

I am fully in favor of protecting gay people. But I am not sure about the wisdom of saying that harming a gay person is somehow worse than harming a straight person.

You had me in your corner till I read the Leviticus line. This country does not need any legislation based on something the bible has told us. That book has been edited, re-edited, and is being edited again now. Will we change our laws with the new edition?

The justice system of our government should be based on the constitution, which is a far more inclusive work of thought.

Saperstein and the democrats want to criminalize thought. Voters should tell them a resounding no thanks.