|
|
It is about time....and yet, still people are up in arms that anyone caught committing a crime of violence would have to be charged with additional crimes on top of the violence itself. Anyone wanna take a stab (pardon the pun) at how murderers in the US are typically sentenced? Would it surprise you to know most are back on the streets within 5 to ten years. That's right murderers released after a short term. That's our justice system. This legislation will also add gay bashing as a crime against society. Wrap you head around that conservatives....oh...wait, pinheads don't have enough head to warp around anything!  -- Edited by MarkMiller at 10/30/2009 12:26 AM PDT
|
Posts:
2,955
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(45 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 5:51 PM
|
> Mary,,
>
> I get you don't get it. But the truth isn't alwasy
> fun, nor is it always politically correct. It is,
> however, correct to say that enacting hate crimes
> legislation isn't really any different. Its
> legislatively enacted revenge.
Thanks Nancy.....I think everyone get's it now. LOL!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(44 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 4:24 PM
|
Mary,,
I get you don't get it. But the truth isn't alwasy fun, nor is it always politically correct. It is, however, correct to say that enacting hate crimes legislation isn't really any different. Its legislatively enacted revenge.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,955
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(43 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 4:01 PM
|
> >What you did was blame the black victim of KKK
> murders and excuse the hate as being justified....
>
> No, I didn't. I said that the KKKers used the
> rationalization that the victims of their hate had in
> fact committed crimes against their communities. That
> is exactly what hate crimes legislation does.
>
>
> Lugs...I'll grant you that Mark took a bit of a leap
> with your statement. But you're taking a might leap
> there, too, if you think the KKK used anything as
> "rationalization". If anything, they used it as an
> excuse which is very different.
No leap, just a reaction to his own words. He said it. I didn't.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,955
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(42 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 4:00 PM
|
> Mark,
>
> >What you did was blame the black victim of KKK
> murders and excuse the hate as being justified....
>
> No, I didn't. I said that the KKKers used the
> rationalization that the victims of their hate had in
> fact committed crimes against their communities.
These are your exact words;
> most of these crimes were attributed to whites
> who felt that the victims had committed crimes
> against their communities, sort of white version of
> hate crimes, if you will....
You did attempt to justify their actions as being similar to a hate crime from blacks against whites...and that is not only very ignorant....it's insulting.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,236
Registered:
9/3/09
|
|
(41 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:58 PM
|
>What you did was blame the black victim of KKK murders and excuse the hate as being justified....
No, I didn't. I said that the KKKers used the rationalization that the victims of their hate had in fact committed crimes against their communities. That is exactly what hate crimes legislation does.
Lugs...I'll grant you that Mark took a bit of a leap with your statement. But you're taking a might leap there, too, if you think the KKK used anything as "rationalization". If anything, they used it as an excuse which is very different.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(40 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:52 PM
|
Mark,
>What you did was blame the black victim of KKK murders and excuse the hate as being justified....
No, I didn't. I said that the KKKers used the rationalization that the victims of their hate had in fact committed crimes against their communities. That is exactly what hate crimes legislation does.
>The Hate Crime Bill does not have a mandatory minimum sentence
True, but it does elevate crimes at the federal level that have sentencing guidelines, does it now? Very similar to the three strikes you're out laws in your own California. Jurisdictions all over the country use drug use or alcohol use, or weapons use during the commission of a crime as a prosecutorial enhancement.
So the observation is totally relevant.
Regardless, this law won't make you any safer on Santa Monica Blvd. It won't make you safer in the Castro, nor will it make the bubba who wants to beat you for his own enjoyment any less likely to do so.
The only tangible thing you'll get is the satisfaction that your anger at having been targetted wil be satiated by potentially having a federal prosecutor take up your cause. Hope that's enough.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,768
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(39 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:48 PM
|
> PW
>
> >Making it a hate crime offers federal protection
>
> This isn't protection. Protection is putting police
> on the streets with a mandate to maintain the peace.
There are police on the steets with that very mandate...how many they can afford to put there requires money...like the police that weren't laid off because of the Recovery Act that you opposed.
And there can never be enough police to protect every street every minute of every day, unless you are advocating some sort of police state.
> >Had this bill been in place, the Feds could have
> taken the case and prosecuted appropriately,
>
> You're making a value judgement here. You're
> asserting that you felt that the crime was
> undercharged.
I don't feel it was undercharged, I know so.
> I offer either Shepard or Byrd, which
> one was undercharged, and yet they are the namesake
> of the legislation.
Yes. Ironic, that
>
> >they would have bothered to prosecute?
>
> You're making an unsubstantiated allegation. You
> have no evidence that this would be the case, only
> your "feeling" that it would.
No, I know it has taken place. I feel that it is more likely to happen in a jurisdiction wherein the murder of a gay man was grossly undercharged simply because he was gay.
> Regardless, this legislation doesn't and won't make
> gays more safe in this country, just as current law
> hasn't made the protected minorities any safer than
> they were prior to it's establishment.
It doesn't protect their safety, it protects their rights.
>
> You freely admin that gay bashing will continue, and
> yet you assert that we will somehow be "protected".
We are talking about legal protection of rights, not the individual protection of safety. I never once claimed that the passage of the bill will make gay people safer, though I do think degree of punishment is at least somewhat of a deterrent.
> The question is by what? Obviously, the threat of
> f federal prosecution doesn't have any substantive
> deterant effect, so what will "protect" us?
It will protect your right to seek and receive equal justice, despite your sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,955
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(38 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:28 PM
|
> Mark,
>
> Sorry the thought was too complex for you.
>
> No matter. Never let the facts get in the way of
> your feelings....
>
> I'm not supporting the KKK here. I'm pointing out,
> correctly, that hate crimes legislation is very much
> like vigilanteism. It's mob supported legislated
> anger. It's taking the blindfold off of justice.
>
> Crime is crime folks. That's why there are
> variations or degrees already out there that define
> how crime is treated in our courts.
>
> What truly baffles me is folks who will regularly
> rant about mandatory minimums are now actively
> supporting the EXACT SAME THING.... you folks don't
> like the sentencing guidelines for example when it
> involves someone who was using drigs, but bigotry, by
> golly, that's the threshhold.
What you did was blame the black victim of KKK murders and excuse the hate as being justified....
Your simple mind cannot grasp the idea that this is not about bigotry.....it's about crime and punishment.
The Hate Crime Bill does not have a mandatory minimum sentence.
And drug laws do basically the same thing....caught with a joint in your car....and the state will confiscate that car. There is no minimum sentencing for drug offenses....the judge still has the power to reduce or enlarge the offense if additional crimes are attached.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,236
Registered:
9/3/09
|
|
(37 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:24 PM
|
"you folks don't like the sentencing guidelines for example when it involves someone who was using drigs, but bigotry, by golly, that's the threshhold."
There is a HUGE difference in sentencing someone criminally for making a choice that affects ONLY their life vs. sentencing someone who is committing a crime against someone else.
What an completely idiotic arguement.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(36 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 3:08 PM
|
Mark,
Sorry the thought was too complex for you.
No matter. Never let the facts get in the way of your feelings....
I'm not supporting the KKK here. I'm pointing out, correctly, that hate crimes legislation is very much like vigilanteism. It's mob supported legislated anger. It's taking the blindfold off of justice.
Crime is crime folks. That's why there are variations or degrees already out there that define how crime is treated in our courts.
What truly baffles me is folks who will regularly rant about mandatory minimums are now actively supporting the EXACT SAME THING.... you folks don't like the sentencing guidelines for example when it involves someone who was using drigs, but bigotry, by golly, that's the threshhold.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(35 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 2:53 PM
|
PW
>Making it a hate crime offers federal protection
This isn't protection. Protection is putting police on the streets with a mandate to maintain the peace.
>Had this bill been in place, the Feds could have taken the case and prosecuted appropriately,
You're making a value judgement here. You're asserting that you felt that the crime was undercharged. I offer either Shepard or Byrd, which one was undercharged, and yet they are the namesake of the legislation.
>they would have bothered to prosecute?
You're making an unsubstantiated allegation. You have no evidence that this would be the case, only your "feeling" that it would.
Regardless, this legislation doesn't and won't make gays more safe in this country, just as current law hasn't made the protected minorities any safer than they were prior to it's establishment.
You freely admin that gay bashing will continue, and yet you assert that we will somehow be "protected". The question is by what? Obviously, the threat of federal prosecution doesn't have any substantive deterant effect, so what will "protect" us?
And just for once, perhaps you'll actually cite a real case where say a local jurisdiction didn't prosecute a vandalism case because the victims were gay. Or maybe you'll provide us with a record in a locality that supports your assertion that assaults weren't charged because the victims were gay.
Do you know what makes people safe? Nothing. Good timing. Good Kharma. This legislation certainly does nothing to stem the tide of bigotry, in fact, more than likely it will server to galvanize folks out there so now they'll have another group of folks to point at as having superrights that the rest of them do not.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,955
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(34 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 2:46 PM
|
> Mark,
>
> >This isn't about making us safer.
>
> Nope, it's not. It's about folks creating the
> perception of having done our community a favor, a
> favor that doesn't actually do anything fyi...
>
> >It means the victims of hate have more options for
> justice.
>
> Which "victim"? The state? Matt Shepard won't enjoy
> any of the alleged options for justice.
>
> >At a time when violence is escalating against the
> LGBT community.
>
> That's usually the assertion. I don't really find
> that's justified by what FBI stats say..
I see....so you only think of those murdered victims and not the ones that survive.
And Jesus Christ.....defending domestic terrorist is pathetic!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(33 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 2:44 PM
|
Wicky,
>When the KKK killed blacks just because they were black,
Just a history lesson, and this is NOT meant as support for these crimes, but... From what I have read, most of these crimes were attributed to whites who felt that the victims had committed crimes against their communities, sort of white version of hate crimes, if you will....
>It is not the crime itself, it is the fact that it succeeds in putting fear in the minds of others in the same group.
What succeeds? The commission of the crime creates fear, or more fear than a non hate crimes act does? Tell that to the folks who lived through any number of serial killer episodes..
>If someone kills muslims in a mosque, other muslims will fear going to a mosque.
Emperically, hasn't worked that way in say the middle east... just saying. These assertions aren't based on fact. You're grasping here.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,909
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(32 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 2:35 PM
|
Mark,
>This isn't about making us safer.
Nope, it's not. It's about folks creating the perception of having done our community a favor, a favor that doesn't actually do anything fyi...
>It means the victims of hate have more options for justice.
Which "victim"? The state? Matt Shepard won't enjoy any of the alleged options for justice.
>At a time when violence is escalating against the LGBT community.
That's usually the assertion. I don't really find that's justified by what FBI stats say..
|
|
|
Posts:
16
Registered:
3/6/09
|
|
(31 of 45)
Re: Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Legislation
Nov 4, 2009 5:47 AM
|
|
Crimes against gay people is now a Fed. Offence. Just passed.
|
|
|
|
|
