NationStates Jolt Archive

linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/congress.hatecrimes.ap/index.html)

Long story short; a bill granting protection to gays from hate-crimes was dropped by congress because it was attached to a bill that funded the Iraq war, alienating quite a few democrates against the war. :headbang:
Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together, what exactly do they have to do with each other?

I really hate our congress.

Republicans know that Dems won't do the funding thang so they figure a good way to shut up the gays is to put a gay bill with another bill the Dems won't swing for.

That's gay?

At any rate, it wouldn't protect them from hate-crimes, it would most likely classify any crimes against them as hate-crimes.(within reasonable bounds?)

If you get shot and it turns out to be a "hate-crime" it hardly helps you.

Republicans know that Dems won't do the funding thang so they figure a good way to shut up the gays is to put a gay bill with another bill the Dems won't swing for.

What...they don't swing that way?

I haven't read it at all... however... why would anyone need added protection against hate-crimes... they're already illegal (hence 'crimes')

Not that I am for hate crimes, but they should be universally frowned upon, not granted exception because of peoples lifestyles....

EDIT: I already think a few too many things are considered hate crimes, sometimes people get into fights who happen to be of different race, or something... yet that could easily be construed as a hate crime... some people go way to far IMHO

What...they don't swing that way?

Who shot who in the what now?

Rolling squid;13268635']Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together

To avoid a veto.

Rolling squid;13268635']linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/congress.hatecrimes.ap/index.html)

Long story short; a bill granting protection to gays from hate-crimes was dropped by congress because it was attached to a bill that funded the Iraq war, alienating quite a few democrates against the war. :headbang:
Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together, what exactly do they have to do with each other?

I really hate our congress.
Welcome to big and uncontrollable government. Don't forget that this little ploy works both ways and is used by both parties.

I haven't read it at all... however... why would anyone need added protection against hate-crimes... they're already illegal (hence 'crimes')

Not that I am for hate crimes, but they should be universally frowned upon, not granted exception because of peoples lifestyles....

The hate crimes legislation in question doesn't cover gays. So they weren't looking for 'added' protection, they were looking for protection period.

"Under current federal law, hate crimes include acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin.

Kennedy's bill would have extended the category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability."

This is also known as the Matthew Shepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepherd) bill.

The hate crimes legislation in question doesn't cover gays. So they weren't looking for 'added' protection, they were looking for protection period.

"Under current federal law, hate crimes include acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin.

Kennedy's bill would have extended the category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability."

This is also known as the Matthew Shepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepherd) bill.
What are you trying to say? One cannot commit a crime against homosexuals because there are none?

What are you trying to say? One cannot commit a crime against homosexuals because there are none?

They aren't covered by hate crime legislation.
I haven't read it at all... however... why would anyone need added protection against hate-crimes... they're already illegal (hence 'crimes')

Crimes against people are (duh) illegal. But hate crimes cover certain classes, while excluding gays.

They aren't covered by hate crime legislation.


Crimes against people are (duh) illegal. But hate crimes cover certain classes, while excluding gays.
I've never figured out why criminals don't commit crimes against people that they like. They always seem to pick people that they either dislike, or are at least indifferent towards. Seems like committing a hate crime ought to be pretty much the rule instead of the exception.

Anyway, there's something about classifying a crime as a "hate" crime that seems to make some group more than equal. And I always thought everyone was supposed to be equal before the bar... Silly me.

I've never figured out why criminals don't commit crimes against people that they like. They always seem to pick people that they either dislike, or are at least indifferent towards. Seems like committing a hate crime ought to be pretty much the rule instead of the exception.

Anyway, there's something about classifying a crime as a "hate" crime that seems to make some group more than equal. And I always thought everyone was supposed to be equal before the bar... Silly me.

Meh. It makes no sense to leave gays out.

I'm not feeling up to debating the merits of hate crime legislation in general. Insurance Law calls me...

*SHUT UP! I'm coming!*

Bleh.

I haven't read it at all... however... why would anyone need added protection against hate-crimes... they're already illegal (hence 'crimes')

Not that I am for hate crimes, but they should be universally frowned upon, not granted exception because of peoples lifestyles....

EDIT: I already think a few too many things are considered hate crimes, sometimes people get into fights who happen to be of different race, or something... yet that could easily be construed as a hate crime... some people go way to far IMHO

Hate crimes are actually underreported according to most estimates.

But, does anyone else think that perhaps the whole idea of hate crimes is wrong? If you commit an illegal act on someone, shouldn't you get punished for your actions, not your reasons?

I think that falls under your freedom of speech, or thought, or whatever you wanna call it. The government should not punish someone for being racist or a homophobe, only for acting on their feelings.

Meh. It makes no sense to leave gays out.

I'm not feeling up to debating the merits of hate crime legislation in general. Insurance Law calls me...

*SHUT UP! I'm coming!*

Bleh.

Here either. I'm just trying to distract myself from paying bills... Time to go back to the credit union tab and finish it up.

Study hard, it must be near exam time.

Hate crimes are actually underreported according to most estimates.

But, does anyone else think that perhaps the whole idea of hate crimes is wrong? If you commit an illegal act on someone, shouldn't you get punished for your actions, not your reasons?

I think that falls under your freedom of speech, or thought, or whatever you wanna call it. The government should not punish someone for being racist or a homophobe, only for acting on their feelings.
There's an argument that motive is already considered when prosecuting a criminal. Adding a few years for calling them a ****** or a queer is just an extension of that.

Hate crimes are actually underreported according to most estimates.

But, does anyone else think that perhaps the whole idea of hate crimes is wrong? If you commit an illegal act on someone, shouldn't you get punished for your actions, not your reasons?

I think that falls under your freedom of speech, or thought, or whatever you wanna call it. The government should not punish someone for being racist or a homophobe, only for acting on their feelings.

I agree.

Yeah, I totally agree! I don't think that the reason should really matter, just that you committed the crime. I think that that's something for the cops to throw in to the pile of charges.

Hate crimes are actually underreported according to most estimates.

But, does anyone else think that perhaps the whole idea of hate crimes is wrong? If you commit an illegal act on someone, shouldn't you get punished for your actions, not your reasons?

I think that falls under your freedom of speech, or thought, or whatever you wanna call it. The government should not punish someone for being racist or a homophobe, only for acting on their feelings.

I agree, so long as the intentional motive is established (as opposed to say, manslughter), it shouldn't matter if you hated them. I can hate those whom I chose, if I want to be a racist, that is fine under the law so long as it does not disrupt other people, or otherwise infringe upon the law... but if I commit a crime, then those same factors that didn't matter before add years to a sentence now... I'm missing the logical connection, the crime is commited, so long as intention is secured, what matters of why there was intention?

note: I am not racist, nor am I a homophobe, or other some-such... it was merely said to make a point.

Hate crime legislation exists for the same reason that there is a distinction between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder. In other words, it's that motive is, and always has been, a factor. It would make no sense for one motive to be barred from being considered, when every other motive is, especially when said motive increases the chance of reoffending.

especially when said motive increases the chance of reoffending.

And constitutes a threat to an entire community.

Rolling squid;13268635']
Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together,
Political school yard taunting.

I agree, so long as the intentional motive is established (as opposed to say, manslughter), it shouldn't matter if you hated them. I can hate those whom I chose, if I want to be a racist, that is fine under the law so long as it does not disrupt other people, or otherwise infringe upon the law... but if I commit a crime, then those same factors that didn't matter before add years to a sentence now... I'm missing the logical connection, the crime is commited, so long as intention is secured, what matters of why there was intention?

note: I am not racist, nor am I a homophobe, or other some-such... it was merely said to make a point.

But it's true. Hate crime that doesn't infringe on the right of freedom of speech seems pretty redundant.

Hate crime legislation exists for the same reason that there is a distinction between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder. In other words, it's that motive is, and always has been, a factor. It would make no sense for one motive to be barred from being considered, when every other motive is, especially when said motive increases the chance of reoffending.

Murder is different though....1st and 2nd degree murder differs because somebody was messed up enough to actually plan out a killing and hence is more crooked in the head than someone to whom something bad happens and they over react. Pre-meditation versus crime of passion is the murder argument. Hate crimes don't care whether it was a crime of passion or pre-meditated....only if "you did it" cause you have something against a protected class.

The whole idea of hate crimes (IMHO) really came out of the overwhelming problems with racism, that were not being stamped out and were even being put up with. I think we are enough passed the point of things being pushed under a rug to even need protected classes. If someone is going to get away with something like that, they wouldn't have gotten charged with doing it out of malice for a group in the first place.

On a lesser note....I think this should definitely fall as a hate crime (http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564000965967411931):

Hate crime legislation exists for the same reason that there is a distinction between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder. In other words, it's that motive is, and always has been, a factor. It would make no sense for one motive to be barred from being considered, when every other motive is, especially when said motive increases the chance of reoffending.

The only difference here (or any other crime) is that of intentional or unintentional.

The rest of the time that motive is used, it's for proof of the crime, not the crime itself. Hard to prove that you did it when you've got no reason to.

Who's Bill and why is he off the team?

Who's Bill and why is he off the team?

Term limits.

Term limits.
ah. I thought maybe he hadn't turned to training enough times.

Rolling squid;13268635']linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/congress.hatecrimes.ap/index.html)

Long story short; a bill granting protection to gays from hate-crimes was dropped by congress because it was attached to a bill that funded the Iraq war, alienating quite a few democrates against the war. :headbang:
Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together, what exactly do they have to do with each other?

I really hate our congress.

Then hate the people too, they're who voted them in.

That's gay?

At any rate, it wouldn't protect them from hate-crimes, it would most likely classify any crimes against them as hate-crimes.(within reasonable bounds?)

If you get shot and it turns out to be a "hate-crime" it hardly helps you.

No hate crimes bill classifies all crimes against a certain group as hate crimes.

What this would have done is add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. If it had been pushed through, a person committing a violent crime against someone because of their perceived sexual orientation (no matter what it was or what their actual orientation was) would have been subject to possible hate crimes sentencing.


Anyway, there's something about classifying a crime as a "hate" crime that seems to make some group more than equal. And I always thought everyone was supposed to be equal before the bar... Silly me.

How so? Do you know anyone who doesn't have a sexual orientation or gender identity?

But, does anyone else think that perhaps the whole idea of hate crimes is wrong? If you commit an illegal act on someone, shouldn't you get punished for your actions, not your reasons?

So you don't think a contract killer should get a tougher sentence because they kill for money, for instance?

Intent and motive have always been factors in sentencing.

I'm sorry I'm not an expert on the US system, but how a Bill be attached to another Bill?

I'm sorry I'm not an expert on the US system, but how a Bill be attached to another Bill?

Amendment to the first bill. Wonderful parliamentary procedure rules and all that (Mason's for the US Congress, I think).

Amendment to the first bill. Wonderful parliamentary procedure rules and all that (Mason's for the US Congress, I think).

And the amendment would pass under the name of an entirely irrelevant Bill? How bizarre.

"Hate Crime" gets tossed around by the media far more than the legal system.

Proving a hate crime was a hate crime is a great deal harder to do, than say...money.

And for the record as far as I can tell, hate crime laws does not make a crimes commited against certian groups hate crimes. It creates a different class of crime (murder 1 murder 2 tack on "hate crime" get more time). It cannot make all crimes against a certain group hate crimes for the simple fact that if the law covers race it means ALL races, not just black, religion means ALL religions not just non-christian, and so on.

And the amendment would pass under the name of an entirely irrelevant Bill? How bizarre.


It is a political way to kill a bill or to get a bill you want passed.

To bad to dems didn't kill the war funding bill by tacking on legalizing Same-sex marriage...worst case is Same-sex marriage is legalized which would only be bad for repubs who run on blocking to evil gays from a 50% divorce rate....

And the amendment would pass under the name of an entirely irrelevant Bill? How bizarre.

Assuming that the amendment gets the votes to get tacked onto the bill, that's how it works. Welcome to parliamentary procedure.

Assuming that the amendment gets the votes to get tacked onto the bill, that's how it works. Welcome to parliamentary procedure.

It seems absurd that an amendment having nothing to do with the original Bill, and dealing with something completely different, would get added.

It seems absurd that an amendment having nothing to do with the original Bill, and dealing with something completely different, would get added.

Afraid that's the way it works. I don't think that we're alone in that either. Can anybody help me out here? I think the UK Parliament works pretty similar. Don't know about the rest of Europe.

So you don't think a contract killer should get a tougher sentence because they kill for money, for instance?

Intent and motive have always been factors in sentencing.

As long as intent is established, it should not matter what the motive is.

However, as stated before, premeditated murder (e.g. contract killer) should be punished more harshly than non premeditated murder. Premeditated murder is a more serious offense. But I don't think that murdering someone for being black is worse than killing someone for money, or any other reason.

As far as I know, motive usually doesn't play a role in sentencing. If it does, I think that's wrong.

Afraid that's the way it works. I don't think that we're alone in that either. Can anybody help me out here? I think the UK Parliament works pretty similar. Don't know about the rest of Europe.

I'm fairly certain the UK Parliament doesn't work that way. I certainly am not aware of any Bills for as long as I've been following politics where a completely irrelevant amendment is added, especially considering that most amendments are done in committee and little amending is done by the whole of either House.

I'm fairly certain the UK Parliament doesn't work that way. I certainly am not aware of any Bills for as long as I've been following politics where a completely irrelevant amendment is added, especially considering that most amendments are done in committee and little amending is done by the whole of either House.

Ah. My mistake then.

And over here the irrelevant amendment can happen in committee, too.

Things like this are linked all the time for all sorts of reasons. Everything, that is, except authorization and appropriation bills. Linking those two is a no-no.

Things like this are linked all the time for all sorts of reasons. Everything, that is, except authorization and appropriation bills. Linking those two is a no-no.

So you can't authorize a program and fund it in the same bill? Sounds silly to me.

Oh well.

Hate crime (thought crime) laws shouldn't exist to begin with.

The hate crimes legislation in question doesn't cover gays. So they weren't looking for 'added' protection, they were looking for protection period.

"Under current federal law, hate crimes include acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin.

Kennedy's bill would have extended the category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability."

This is also known as the Matthew Shepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepherd) bill.

Here's what confuses me about this story. It is my understanding that hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability are already federal hate crimes, and have been since 1994. I haven't done the independent research to figure out what exactly the Matthew Shepard Act would do that is different than current law, but it isn't simple as reported. At least I don't think so.

At least that is what it says in section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/gun94.pdf) (warning, 356 page pdf):

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crime
in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the
case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the
crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation
of any person.
(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.—Pursuant to section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to
provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels
for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a
reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section,
the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there
is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative
punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into
account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

Anyway, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the constitutionality of hate crime laws in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

... Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id. at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id. at 949, and n. 7.

So a hate crime enhancement is no different from other sentencing enhancements which have always included differing punishments for differing intents and motives.

So a hate crime enhancement is no different from other sentencing enhancements which have always included differing punishments for differing intents and motives.

Can you give some examples of enhancements besides hate crimes? Other than intentional/unintentional (which often constitute different crimes to begin with), I'm not aware of any.

So you can't authorize a program and fund it in the same bill? Sounds silly to me.

There's been talk in Washington for years about a "pay as you go" system that would do just that. But that is so realistic, so practical, that it can never pass. That's why Washington's ablaze every year around budget time, because that's where most of the appropriations take place.

There's been talk in Washington for years about a "pay as you go" system that would do just that. But that is so realistic, so practical, that it can never pass. That's why Washington's ablaze every year around budget time, because that's where most of the appropriations take place.

It does make sense to do the budget as one big bill for most stuff, but just not when you are first starting a program. If you can't get the amendment passed to the budget in time, you end up with a program without money. Or if you get the amendment passed but the program bill dies, then you have money with nowhere to put it. Pretty dumb.

Can you give some examples of enhancements besides hate crimes? Other than intentional/unintentional (which often constitute different crimes to begin with), I'm not aware of any.

Here is a link to the 2007 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual:

http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/tabcon07_1.htm

As you can see for yourself there are scores of ways a sentence can be enhanced, beyond distinctions between offenses. Categories of enhancements include status of the victim (vulnerable, official, restraint, terrorism), status of the offender (leader, abuse of trust, use of minor), obstruction, flight, etc. There are also categories for reductions such as acceptance of responsibility, mitigating role in the crime, etc.

It does make sense to do the budget as one big bill for most stuff, but just not when you are first starting a program. If you can't get the amendment passed to the budget in time, you end up with a program without money. Or if you get the amendment passed but the program bill dies, then you have money with nowhere to put it. Pretty dumb.
Yeah, but it makes perfect political sense. Congress creates and funds the executive branch, but it doesn't actually run the branch itself. Thus, they can get all the credit while doing very little real work to run the government.

The only difference here (or any other crime) is that of intentional or unintentional.

The rest of the time that motive is used, it's for proof of the crime, not the crime itself. Hard to prove that you did it when you've got no reason to.

so basically what you just said is that motivation isn't a factor, except when it is...

Oh well.

Hate crime (thought crime) laws shouldn't exist to begin with.

so then "murder" shouldn't exist as a crime?

Rolling squid;13268635']linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/congress.hatecrimes.ap/index.html)

Long story short; a bill granting protection to gays from hate-crimes was dropped by congress because it was attached to a bill that funded the Iraq war, alienating quite a few democrates against the war. :headbang:
Can anyone tell me why were these even on the same bill together, what exactly do they have to do with each other?

I really hate our congress.


1 of 2 reasons.


1. To get a bill passed attach it to a bill that can't fail
2. To get a bill to fail attach it to a bill that can't win

I suspect #2 here.