New hate crimes bill

[Monkeyleg]

A bill introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) would consolidate existing federal hate crimes laws and add to the list of those protected by such laws.

"What we have now is a patchwork," Boxer said. "We have one hate crime law for one group and another law for a different group. It's reaching the point where it's difficult to know which laws affect whom."

Under the bill, crimes committed based upon a victim's race, sex or religion would receive equal punishment. Under current federal laws, penalties can vary widely.

The Boxer bill also adds more minority groups to those protected. Among the groups to be added are Asians, Hispanics, Eskimos, transvestites, transexuals, Transylvanians, Native Americans with reservations in Toledo, extra terrestrials, women with excessive facial hair, and Vietnamese men named Charlie.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell criticized Boxer's  legislation as being far too broad.

"The only persons not included in this bill are white heterosexual males," McConnell said.

Senator Boxer took issue with McConnell's statement but added, "If I thought the votes were there, I'd put a bounty on straight white men. We have centuries of oppression to atone for."

President Obama, speaking before the annual rally of the  Genuinely Ugly Lesbian Party (GULP) in San Francisco, said that "we should reject divisiveness." At the same time, he said, "we should seek to make reparations for the sins of our country, especially the sins of typical white men."

[Standing Wolf]

Heck. Nuke 'em.

[Perd Hapley]

"What we have now is a patchwork," Boxer said. "We have one hate crime law for one group and another law for a different group. It's reaching the point where it's difficult to know which laws affect whom."

I'm afraid this broke my irony event handler.  


Oh, wait, I just read the rest of the article.  I'm glad I've been had. 

[Waitone]

"The only persons not included in this bill are white heterosexual males," McConnell said.

Senator Boxer took issue with McConnell's statement but added, "If I thought the votes were there, I'd put a bounty on straight white men. We have centuries of oppression to atone for."

A>"Bounty" can be interpreted by a suitably distorted mind as an appeal for vigilante action.
B>Atonement is a religious concept.

A senator has no business advocating either.

[Monkeyleg]

A senator has no business advocating either.

Waitone, I'm assuming you realize this was my lame attempt at humor, right?

[Tallpine]

Waitone, I'm assuming you realize this was my lame attempt at humor, right?

It wouldn't have even been (somewhat) funny if it wasn't so close to reality 

[Nitrogen]

These laws are there for a reason, and at some point in our past, were necessary.

If someone is getting away with a true CRIME because of a problem with local justice in an area, I think this can almost be called for, and I think that was the original intent of laws like these.

The problem is, they have become more and more fluffy about what they protect.  In hindsight, this should have been expected, as government almost always shoehorns regulation from good ideas into worse.

I have also experienced what would be considered "hate crimes" if I was anything other than white from an Indian based employer, and had little recourse other than to just get fired and find another job.  It was quite eye opening; and I think thats another huge hole in the whole system.

[lupinus]

These laws are there for a reason, and at some point in our past, were necessary.

They are not needed now and will never needed.  What was needed was to enforce existing laws equally across the board.

If a white male is strung up because it's his killers preferred method of killing, it should hold the same penalty as a bunch of sheet clad rednecks getting together and stringing up a black guy for no other reason then he is black.

Both acts are murder, to punish one more harshly then the other based only on the reason for the murder is a miscarriage of justice IMO. Taking motive into account should have no meaning on the sentence for a crime.

[grampster]

This thread is page 1 of the Armed Polite Onion.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

These laws are there for a reason, and at some point in our past, were necessary.

These laws aren't needed now and never have been.  Murder is murder regardless of the victim's skin color and sexual orientation and religion and whatever else.  Likewise for assault, robbery, whatever crime you might imagine.

We are all supposed to be equal under the law.  I think it's a disgrace that some people are given special treatment under the law.

[Waitone]

Shows me not to try to differentiate between satire and reality. 

[Nitrogen]

These laws aren't needed now and never have been.  Murder is murder regardless of the victim's skin color and sexual orientation and religion and whatever else.  Likewise for assault, robbery, whatever crime you might imagine.

We are all supposed to be equal under the law.  I think it's a disgrace that some people are given special treatment under the law.

People of color in the south after the civil war, and before the late 60's would disagree.

[roo_ster]

People of color in the south after the civil war, and before the late 60's would disagree.

Passing a hate crimes bill would have not helped one whit.  It is a flimsy bit of feel-goodism to show just how much the guy who votes for it "cares about the issue."

You think a jury that would nullify a murder charge would look at charge of hate crimes and all the sudden get all weepy and weak in the knees? 

"Oh no, they're charging Bobby 'Lynch Meister' McCoy with hate crimes!  The game is up, we'd best all play nice from here on out."

[Jocassee]

and Vietnamese men named Charlie.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHA

Senator Boxer took issue with McConnell's statement but added, "If I thought the votes were there, I'd put a bounty on straight white men. We have centuries of oppression to atone for."

[/quote]

Isn't that parody of a real quote about gun control?

[HankB]

All kidding aside, the current push for "hate crime" laws came about after the James Byrd murder in Texas.

If you don't remember, James Byrd was murdered by being chained up behind a truck and dragged down the road. Because he was black and the perps were white, some said it showed a "need" for hate crime laws.

But under EXISTING laws, the State of Texas found the three white guys who did it, charged them, tried them, and convicted them. Two of the perps are currently awaiting the needle on death row, and while it's unfortunate that the third perp beat the death penalty, he's still going to spend the rest of his miserable life in prison, where he'll no doubt have a hard time.

NOTHING in ANY hate crime bill would have added to the outcome . . . so why waste time on trying to criminalize thought?

[zahc]

Taking motive into account should have no meaning on the sentence for a crime.

Motive is always taken into account, and has been forever. Motive is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder and sometimes between manslaughter and murder and etc etc.

I disagree with hate crimes strongly because I think they are racist, and that's the real kind of racist too, not the Un-PC flavor of racist.

You think a jury that would nullify a murder charge would look at charge of hate crimes and all the sudden get all weepy and weak in the knees? 

My source tells me that one of the original motivations for hate crime laws was to in fact CHANGE THE JURY. The hate crime laws conveniently allowed the crime to be tried in a different jurisdiction, allowing justice to be served by a more impartial jury rather than the local one, where getting a just ruling may have been impossible.

[Tallpine]

All kidding aside, the current push for "hate crime" laws came about after the James Byrd murder in Texas.

If you don't remember, James Byrd was murdered by being chained up behind a truck and dragged down the road. Because he was black and the perps were white, some said it showed a "need" for hate crime laws.

But of course the torture and murder of a young white couple by five black guys in Knoxville gets no national news attention.  :rolleyes:

My source tells me that one of the original motivations for hate crime laws was to in fact CHANGE THE JURY. The hate crime laws conveniently allowed the crime to be tried in a different jurisdiction, allowing justice to be served by a more impartial jury rather than the local one, where getting a just ruling may have been impossible.

The federal jury is taken from a similar area as a local trial.  BTDT and got "excused" from a federal jury for refusing to agree to follow the judges orders about the federal law.

[Nitrogen]

But under EXISTING laws, the State of Texas found the three white guys who did it, charged them, tried them, and convicted them. Two of the perps are currently awaiting the needle on death row, and while it's unfortunate that the third perp beat the death penalty, he's still going to spend the rest of his miserable life in prison, where he'll no doubt have a hard time.

NOTHING in ANY hate crime bill would have added to the outcome . . . so why waste time on trying to criminalize thought?

And that today is exactly the problem with hate crimes laws TODAY. 
If you could show a real need for the federal government to step in (e.g. Blacks, Gays, Oranges, Whites, whatever are routinely being denied justice in a repeatable and documented way) I could see the need.

I'd much rather see a procedure for appeals that would allow for shunting off to the federal court system in cases like these, but I have no idea what that would require.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

People of color in the south after the civil war, and before the late 60's would disagree.

Do you honestly believe that the problem back then was a lack of hate crimes laws?

[sanglant]

All kidding aside, the current push for "hate crime" laws came about after the James Byrd murder in Texas.

If you don't remember, James Byrd was murdered by being chained up behind a truck and dragged down the road. Because he was black and the perps were white, some said it showed a "need" for hate crime laws.

But under EXISTING laws, the State of Texas found the three white guys who did it, charged them, tried them, and convicted them. Two of the perps are currently awaiting the needle on death row, and while it's unfortunate that the third perp beat the death penalty, he's still going to spend the rest of his miserable life in prison, where he'll no doubt have a hard time.

NOTHING in ANY hate crime bill would have added to the outcome . . . so why waste time on trying to criminalize thought?

so we can lock up(and maybe even kill) people that think bad things.

[lupinus]

Motive is always taken into account, and has been forever. Motive is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder and sometimes between manslaughter and murder and etc etc.

I disagree with hate crimes strongly because I think they are racist, and that's the real kind of racist too, not the Un-PC flavor of racist.

You confuse motive with intent.

[Viking]

But of course the torture and murder of a young white couple by five black guys in Knoxville gets no national news attention.  :rolleyes:

Didn't ya hear? It's a newly enforced decree from the UN. Only whites can be racists and oppressors.