Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .

[Vandren]

White House threatens to veto hate-crimes bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.

Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.

The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.

In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.
Addressing freedom of speech

Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on clergy who preach against homosexual behavior.

"We believe that this legislation will criminalize our freedom of speech and our ability to preach the gospel," said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland.

Supporters disagree. The bill, they say, applies only to violent crime and, in fact, specifically addresses freedom-of-speech issues.

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says.
Intense debate on the House floor

House representatives got into a heated exchange Thursday as they debated the bill.

"They [hate crimes] are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

If President Bush vetoes the bill, it would mark the third veto of his presidency. His second came Tuesday, when he vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/hate.crimes.bill/index.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bush Warns of Vetoes Over Abortion Issue
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 4, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 3 — President Bush told Congressional leaders Thursday that he would veto any legislation that weakened federal policies or laws on abortion.

In a two-page letter sent to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, characterized the president’s message as “drawing a bright line.”

A statement from the group noted that many appropriations bills that Congress will take up include provisions to limit federal financing of abortion and that abortion rights groups have been urging Democratic leaders in Congress to change.

For example, a provision is under consideration for a foreign appropriations bill that would end a ban on discussing abortion in family planning clinics in developing nations.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, said she interpreted the president’s letter as a broader threat “to veto any pro-choice legislation.”

“Instead of trying to work with Congress he’s trying to threaten Congress, and that won’t work,” he said.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president felt that it was important to remind Congress of his position on these issues. It’s not about vetoing, it’s about standing firm on his core beliefs.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04veto.html?ex=1178942400&en=cb021610aff63aab&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Does he not see the irony and hypocrisy involved in this statement - "veto threat would apply to any measures that 'allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life'"?

[Jefepato]

What "compassionate conservatives" are you talking about?  I don't see any mentioned here (unless you count Feeney and Gohmert, but I don't know enough about them to say).

[Vandren]

What "compassionate conservatives" are you talking about?  I don't see any mentioned here (unless you count Feeney and Gohmert, but I don't know enough about them to say).

The Republican party line for the last seven years has been that they are "compassionate conservatives" (despite all evidence to the contrary).

[RubySlippers]

What's the problem violent crimes are already covered under every state law I don't see any use extending Hate Crime legislation to sexual choices either.

As for aqbortion restrictions the women do have a right to abortion but enforcement is still regulated at the state levels for medical practices. I see no problem with restrictions on the practice such as requiring a properly licensed surgical facility to do the procedures at. Or parental notificaton its a major medical prodedure when I was yonger I couldn't get medical procedures done without their consent even if relatively minor. Seems to me society is taking an extreme view of women's rights here.

Mioght I add its utterly unfair to the men who may want the child and be part of their lives what about their rights?

[Vandren]

What's the problem violent crimes are already covered under every state law I don't see any use extending Hate Crime legislation to sexual choices either.

Ah, so you'd agree that women are lower in social value than Hispanics or Jews?  I see.

One of the biggest problems is the reasoning that many of the anti-hate crimes extension politicians and religious leaders are using, e.g. misinformation and hypocrisy.  Both come from the quoted minister (free speech - which is actually protected by the law, therefore making his statement misinformation - and the hypocritical nature of someone who claims to serve a god of peace and tolerance preaching hate).  The second also comes from the quoted politician regarding "the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American."  Which implies that the current Hate Crimes legislation that protects against racial and religious violence (designed thanks in large part to lynchings and neo-Nazis) is also wrong.  Not to mention the hypocrisy of claiming to be a "compassionate conservative" while only apparently caring about W.A.S.P. males.

Another major problem is that under current legislation, someone could come along an kill any woman simply because she's a woman, plea bargain down to a voluntary manslaughter charge, and get off with under 10 years in prison, then come out and do it all over again.  Hate Crimes legislation increases the minimum mandatory sentences.

As for aqbortion restrictions the women do have a right to abortion but enforcement is still regulated at the state levels for medical practices. I see no problem with restrictions on the practice such as requiring a properly licensed surgical facility to do the procedures at. Or parental notificaton its a major medical prodedure when I was yonger I couldn't get medical procedures done without their consent even if relatively minor. Seems to me society is taking an extreme view of women's rights here.

Nice try to change the subject.  Nothing here has anything to do with the issue(s) involved in any pro-choice legislation.  The point of "pro-choice" legislation is to protect abortion rights and to remove religiously motivated restrictions enacted by conservative leaders - such as the latest one erroneously upheld by the Supreme Court (by one vote) which has no provision for providing an emergency abortion if the choice between the life of the mother or the unborn child must be made (yet again the religious right telling everyone that a woman's life doesn't matter).

Let's use a little logical reasoning (courtesy of Aristotle - see On Rhetoric) with G.W.'s stated reasons for vetoing any legislation designed to protect abortion rights:

If "his veto threat would apply to any measures that 'allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.'"

Then, logically, he automatically has to veto any legislation that provides money to a) the military, b) military contractors, and c) any lab that is working to make more effective chemical/biological weapons, all of which have the express purpose of the "destruction of human life."

Yet, he continuously requests millions, if not billions, of dollars for the military, thereby making his stated reasons highly hypocritical and ironic.  Added to the hypocrisy of claiming to be a "compassionate conservative," but only when it is politically/religiously convenient and only when it involves microscopic collections of, effectively parasitic (can't exist outside the mother without special machines until birth and feed off her until then), cells.

(To forestall the response I know this bit of logic will get, I'm not suggesting that funding for the military be cut.  I'm simply applying basic logic to an incredibly, well, stupid statement made by a public figure.  Admittedly, I think less should be spent on the military and more on education, among other things, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Jefepato]

Which implies that the current Hate Crimes legislation that protects against racial and religious violence (designed thanks in large part to lynchings and neo-Nazis) is also wrong.

It is.  Hate crime is thoughtcrime.

If murderers are getting off too easy, then the penalties should be stiffened across the board.  Motive shouldn't enter into it.

[Vandren]

It is.  Hate crime is thoughtcrime.

No, it isn't.  Motive is an integral feature in every legal system - involuntary manslaughter vs. voluntary; premeditated murder vs. accidental; possession of an illegal substance with intent to sell vs. possession with intent to use . . . etc. etc. - been that way for, well, since Hammurabi, so 3000-5000 years or so.

Thoughtcrime (according to Orwell in 1984) is being arrested and charged with planning to commit a crime or even thinking about a crime.  Motive for the crime has nothing to do with thoughtcrime.  Just taught that novel recently with an entire period devoted to an open discussion re: thoughtcrime.  :)

[Jefepato]

No, it isn't.  Motive is an integral feature in every legal system - involuntary manslaughter vs. voluntary; premeditated murder vs. accidental; possession of an illegal substance with intent to sell vs. possession with intent to use . . . etc. etc. - been that way for, well, since Hammurabi, so 3000-5000 years or so.

Obviously, but the distinction between meaning to kill vs. not meaning to kill, and the distinction between premeditated vs. accidental murder, are very different from making a legal distinction based on why the killer wanted to kill the victim.

[Lilac]

My personal opinion is that a federal law should be universal in scope.  That is, if you're going to penalize hate as a motive, it shouldn't matter what that motive is targeted against.  The way it currently is, it does border on 'thought crime' because some groups enjoy additional protections, and while this might work on the face to protect an established minority, it doesn't take into account changing demographics - majority becomes a plurality, plurality becomes a minority, etc.

[RubySlippers]

Excuse me but the United States is fighting the War of Terror pretty much alone if they need funding for legitimate execution of our global campaign then fine. Yes I know the British have a commitment but face it the United States is commiting the vast amount of resources to the fight- just because we spend such a large amount on our military. Now Iraq was a mistake but Afghanistan wasn't neither is other direct spending on the intelligence services. My country is at war. Its not compassionate conservativism here its my country defending itself from a large number of terrorists all who are targeting the US in the main.

I deem that fully different from Hate Crime legislation for groups of persons that are already well covered as citizens by the states. Must I note the Hate Crime laws are in place for people regading race, color, religion and the like. They just won't extend that to gays and transgendered persons why Federalize crimes when its not necessary?

[Vandren]

Obviously, but the distinction between meaning to kill vs. not meaning to kill, and the distinction between premeditated vs. accidental murder, are very different from making a legal distinction based on why the killer wanted to kill the victim.

Motive shouldn't enter into it.

No offense intended, but these are contradictory positions (saying motive shouldn't enter the legal system, then implying that yes it needs to be there).

And there are very evident legal distinctions based on why a killer wanted to kill a victim, it's called evidence and proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused had motive.  However, in the case of Hate Crimes, it is very difficult to prove that a crime was racially, religiously, or sexist(ly?) motivated.  If it can be proven, though, beyond a reasonable doubt, personally, the accused ought to serve more time, especially since many laws covering violent crimes leave way too much room for judicial discretion.  Case in point, only a month or two ago, a local judge (can't recall where, just caught the story briefly on CNN) sentenced a child rapist to one or two years in prison, with a chance to reduce that time for good behavior - currently the victim is appealing the sentence to a higher court.

The way it currently is, it does border on 'thought crime' because some groups enjoy additional protections, and while this might work on the face to protect an established minority, it doesn't take into account changing demographics - majority becomes a plurality, plurality becomes a minority, etc.

While this is definitely true, say for the Hispanic community in the U.S., the metamorphosis of a minority group into a majority group doesn't deal with the underlying racism/sexism/whatnot that the laws were created to deal with.  Yes, this underlying assumption then means legislating morality (which still isn't related to thoughtcrime), but then again, we legislate lots of morality based on general beliefs that underlie human relations - we as a society consider theft, murder, and cannibalism to be immoral, for instance, things which virtually every human society has considered immoral (although cannibalism, supposedly, existed in some historic societies up through the early-20th c., but sociologists and anthropologists are still debating its actual existance).
______________________________________________________________

Side note, the closest I can recall Orwell coming to define thoughtcrime is on page 19 of the Signet Classics edition of 1984 (early 21st c. ed., though 1950 copyright), where he states: "He had committed - would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper - the essential crime that contained all others in itself.  Thoughtcrime, they called it" by thinking (and writing) "Down with Big Brother," which was illegal.  The key element of thoughtcrime is most emphatically not motive, but thinking of committing or mentally committing a crime.  Thus, arresting someone for murdering a Jew and charging him/her with a Hate Crime which was actually committed is not thoughtcrime.  Arresting and charging someone with thinking about murdering a person (anyone), when no physical crime was actually committed, would be.

[Vandren]

Excuse me but the United States is fighting the War of Terror pretty much alone if they need funding for legitimate execution of our global campaign then fine. Yes I know the British have a commitment but face it the United States is commiting the vast amount of resources to the fight- just because we spend such a large amount on our military. Now Iraq was a mistake but Afghanistan wasn't neither is other direct spending on the intelligence services. My country is at war. Its not compassionate conservativism here its my country defending itself from a large number of terrorists all who are targeting the US in the main.

Nice attempt to change the subject again.

Once more, this has nothing to do with the points made below.  And it shows a lack of actually reading the points below.

Though I'm quickly learning that some people don't seem to understand hypocrisy, analogies, or Aristotlian logic (which is the basis of modern Western logical reasoning).

I deem that fully different from Hate Crime legislation for groups of persons that are already well covered as citizens by the states.

Again, nice attempt to change the subject, though it still has nothing to do with the comments below.

Must I note the Hate Crime laws are in place for people regading race, color, religion and the like. They just won't extend that to gays and transgendered persons why Federalize crimes when its not necessary?

Actually, Hate Crime legislation only covers race/ethnicity and religion.  Though I notice that once again you've ignored the gender part of the problem regarding the recent attempt at legislation, e.g. women aren't included (because conservative lawmakers block every attempt to include them).

[Jefepato]

No offense intended, but these are contradictory positions (saying motive shouldn't enter the legal system, then implying that yes it needs to be there).

Sorry.  "Motive shouldn't enter into it" was a completely stupid thing to say.  It would be more accurate to say "given that someone intends to commit murder, the specific reason why he wants to murder his victim should not be a factor in what type of offense it is."

And there are very evident legal distinctions based on why a killer wanted to kill a victim, it's called evidence and proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused had motive.

That isn't a distinction being made in the nature of the crime, but rather part of the process of proving a case against the accused (because the absence of a motive casts serious doubt on his guilt).  From this, it doesn't necessarily follow that the specific motive should be a relevant factor in what he's being charged with.

However, in the case of Hate Crimes, it is very difficult to prove that a crime was racially, religiously, or sexist(ly?) motivated.  If it can be proven, though, beyond a reasonable doubt, personally, the accused ought to serve more time, especially since many laws covering violent crimes leave way too much room for judicial discretion.

Why is a racist murder worse than any other murder?

Case in point, only a month or two ago, a local judge (can't recall where, just caught the story briefly on CNN) sentenced a child rapist to one or two years in prison, with a chance to reduce that time for good behavior - currently the victim is appealing the sentence to a higher court.

That law needs fixing, but isn't really relevant to hate crime legislation...

[RubySlippers]

Well I don't see what the problem is if the hate crime legislation just covered GENDER it very likely would have passed it was the sexual orientation part most conservatives don't like. I tend to agree with them its not clear cut in all cases if its nature or nuture. Why should hate crimes be invoked over a persons choices of sexual partner at the Federal level? (Yes I know I'm gay that doesn't mean I think its always a matter of birth, just as likely to me someone could choose another person of the same gender as a lover.)

As for the President vetoing any abortion laws he doesn't like that is his right until he is voted out of office. And the limits on funding for family planning overseas and the like is fine if the world doesn't want to take OUR money with strings attached then don't take it. Same with special interest groups in our country getting funds. Find the money elsewhere.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I suppose it would be best to start off by saying that I do not approve of Hate Crime Legislation, though my reasoning is probably a bit different than some listed here.  My disagreement is not over the fear of "thought crime" and is not really related to this fear of morality police.  Already, imbedded in our legal system, are motive based decisions and laws.  For me the notion of gang related crime comes to mind since such a term is malleable based upon the state, community, and personal opinion of the prosecuting entity.  There is not set definition of a gang related crime, yet if found convicted of such a thing the sentence is harsher and more money is put into the prosecution.  This is also true of politically motivated crimes such a terrorism or assassination.  The difference between a man being put to death hinges on whether he killed a political figure out of passion or from political intentions, between simple murder and perhaps even treason.

The original intent of Hate Crime Legislation was not to deter violent crime against minority groups.  Tougher sentencing, harsher punishments, and even better prosecuters don't deter crime.  Hate Crime Legislation was a check by the federal government against local prosecutors, allowing the federal government to step in and ensure the case was being handled fairly.  This prevents biased prosecutors and judges from "dropping the ball" in regards to minorities, preventing racism from tangling the legal system where possible.  The question is not whether the life of a black person is worth defending more than a white person, but whether the defense will be equal without government oversight.  Hate Crime Legislation is a way for the federal government to show a lack of confidence in state legal systems.

My disagreement with Hate Crime Legislation does stem from my general belief that harsher sentences are useless as a deterent for crime.  I also feel that state governments should be allowed to show themselves capable of fairly handling such high profile cases without the government tying up its own prosecutors.  An appeals courts should have a federal representative should the case go further than a simple trial, ensuring that no mishandling occured and to root out fouplay against such minorities.  While racism, sexism, discrimination on sexual orientation, and other forms of "isms" still rear their ugly heads across the government bodies of this coutnry, there can be no recovery unless trust is shown.  The state prosecutors have to be trusted and allowed to prosecute these cases without "daddy" looking over their shoulders.

[Celestial Goblin]

I'm not up to debating it right now and here, but in my opinion the hate crime legislation does far more good than bad and as long as America has such legislation in any form, sexual preference should surely be included.

[Monica]

I see this argument as having as much credible circumstance as proposing an extension that would protect abortion advocates, and those working in abortion clinics. While they (any such group) are well deserving of protection from violence, filing down hate-crime laws to the point at which its just a list of who we need to protect and why is absurd. We do have, believe it or not, a general state of enforcement and prosecution for every-day violent acts. Of course homosexuals need to be protected when the prying jaws of opposition raise a violent hand, but they deserve it just as much as anyone else with a varying stance on any little matter does; and if we define their need to be protected from hate-crimes, it just creates a pathway for further branching.

[Zakharra]

 But if some groups are not specifically named for protection, then many of the ones who do hate crimes against them will either get off free or lesser sentances. It protects those who are being targetted because of what race/gender/sexual preference/relgion they are.

[Celestial Goblin]

I see this argument as having as much credible circumstance as proposing an extension that would protect abortion advocates, and those working in abortion clinics. While they (any such group) are well deserving of protection from violence, filing down hate-crime laws to the point at which its just a list of who we need to protect and why is absurd. We do have, believe it or not, a general state of enforcement and prosecution for every-day violent acts. Of course homosexuals need to be protected when the prying jaws of opposition raise a violent hand, but they deserve it just as much as anyone else with a varying stance on any little matter does; and if we define their need to be protected from hate-crimes, it just creates a pathway for further branching.

Homosexuality is not a 'stance' on a 'little matter' but something fundamental to a persons sexuality. It's one of the most annoying things when all kinds of homophobes use phrases like 'homosexual lifestyle' to describe it.

As for abortion cliinics, I'd think that people making attacks on aborton clinics should be targeted by laws concenring terrorists. I'm pretty sure that when it comes to being harsh on terrorists, USA is not missing anything.

Also, I don't think there is anything bad with the hate-crime law branching into a list of groups needing protection, as long as the legislation works both ways and takes the criminal's motif into account. Not 'harsher sentence for beating up a homosexual' but 'harsher sentence for beating up someone *because* of their sexual preference'.

So for example:
A black guy gets beaten up by racists - hate crime
A black guy gets beaten up by muggers who beat up everyone - not a hate crime
A white guy gets beaten up by the same muggers - not a hate crime
A white guy gets beaten up for being white - hate crime

And why? Because folks who commit crimes that specifically target a group they hate are so bad that they need every punishment they can get. I'm pretty sure it's much easier to re-form someone who commited crimes out of greed than someone who commited them out of hatred.

[Elvi]

You've hit the nail on the head there Celestial.

Hate crimes are very specific.
A racist targets a person because of their ethneticity and that is the only reason they commit the crime against them.

Sometimes it is very easy for everyone to say, "He/she did that because they were white/black.", when it's a simple case of mugging or theft or simply just not getting along with another person.

(And this goes the same for religion and gender issues)

What has to be done is for those who deal with the laws to look at the crimes and see if there was that sort of motive involved.

[Brittlby]

Because folks who commit crimes that specifically target a group they hate are so bad that they need every punishment they can get. I'm pretty sure it's much easier to re-form someone who commited crimes out of greed than someone who commited them out of hatred.

Based on what? Do you really think a stiffer punishment will serve to reform someone like that?

[Celestial Goblin]

Based on what? Do you really think a stiffer punishment will serve to reform someone like that?

Well, punishment has 4 purposes:
1)reforming - making sure the criminal won't dare commiting the crime again
2)deterrent - being scary enough so people won't try to commit the crime in the first place
3)isolation - keeping criminals away from the rest of populace, at least for a time
4)vindication - making the victim(and rest of society) feel that justice been done

When it comes to people commiting crimes out of hate, all four points apply, in my opinion.
In case someone will be fanatical enough that points 1) and 2) won't apply to them, point 3) can still make a difference. Point 4) might seem like it's the least important, but when it comes to hate-crimes, it can be important to show minorities that they won't be left alone by the society at large.

Now, my definition of 'reforming' is a very cynical one. Spend a few years in prison and you might not want to go back. I can agree that actually changing *this* kind of offenders attitude towards people can be near impossible. But if you can't make someone into a normal person, you can at least keep them from doing harm.

[Zakharra]

Based on what? Do you really think a stiffer punishment will serve to reform someone like that?

Not neccessarily not, but it would get that person out of society for a longer period of time. In jail, they can't inflict their hatred on society.

[Monica]

Homosexuality is not a 'stance' on a 'little matter' but something fundamental to a persons sexuality. It's one of the most annoying things when all kinds of homophobes use phrases like 'homosexual lifestyle' to describe it.

And yet, it is one social facet among many that recieve hate. I was not saying the homosexuality is a stance that one takes, but that in the big picture of cultural targetting, it is only one part of a much larger scheme. Arguably, even preference or choice, things considerably smaller and of ones own concious effort, can be fundamental to a person's being-- and again, we have to define what social creeds must be protected by hate crimes. The current hate-crime laws tend to target factors that are broad and concrete, if we add hate-crimes against homosexuality, then it completely skews the original generality of the law itself.

As for abortion cliinics, I'd think that people making attacks on aborton clinics should be targeted by laws concenring terrorists. I'm pretty sure that when it comes to being harsh on terrorists, USA is not missing anything.

The line between hate-crime and terrorist attack is very, very vague. A part of this argument, too, is deciding the difference between them. And even if part of it is terrorist in nature, is it not still a hate-crime? Similiarly, abortion clinics being bombed are by no means even a majority of the hate-crimes against abortion advocates.

Also, I don't think there is anything bad with the hate-crime law branching into a list of groups needing protection, as long as the legislation works both ways and takes the criminal's motif into account. Not 'harsher sentence for beating up a homosexual' but 'harsher sentence for beating up someone *because* of their sexual preference'.

The reason the law poses a generality instead of specifically outlining the groups which they would determine need protection is that many groups deserve the treatment and protection of the law from such crimes, and such has been the case in hate-crime legislation already. I would agree if a generality about sexuality was added to the clause, but I would still ward against any specification there.

Also: your argument that one might recieve a harsher sentence *because* their crime was specifically targeting one facet of a said individual is already present in today's justice system WITHOUT further specification from a hate-crime legislation. Criminal motivs and purpose have always played some part in determining the degree to which the criminal might be punished, but the same problems posed there would be posed in this situation-- proving that it was, in fact, a hate-crime and not just a random act of violence. Granted, this is something that can usually be done with ease in most such cases.

So for example:
A black guy gets beaten up by racists - hate crime
A black guy gets beaten up by muggers who beat up everyone - not a hate crime
A white guy gets beaten up by the same muggers - not a hate crime
A white guy gets beaten up for being white - hate crime

And why? Because folks who commit crimes that specifically target a group they hate are so bad that they need every punishment they can get. I'm pretty sure it's much easier to re-form someone who commited crimes out of greed than someone who commited them out of hatred.

Not necessarily. To many, a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime, and in terms of psychological therapy, even in this minor division there are many exceptions. Many would argue that, committing crimes with no real intent is far more disturbing than targeting any one person-- because that CAN be reformed. Truth be told, many bigots can be turned from this habit, and can be generally good people. Every day criminals though, committing violence without heed to any real social factors, are typically far more dangerous. However, specific attacks like those in hate-crimes show premeditation and narrow-minded intent, so while they may not necessarily be more dangerous, they are treated with greater concern by the American justice system.

[Celestial Goblin]

The current hate-crime laws tend to target factors that are broad and concrete, if we add hate-crimes against homosexuality, then it completely skews the original generality of the law itself.

I have no problem with all sexual preferences being protected under the hate crime legislation. But right now, it's only homosexual people that are targets of hate-motivated attacks. Other groups do not suffer problems of this magnitude.

I think that when it comes to law, achieving the goal should be more important than ideology. Making law less 'general' is not a bad thing if it makes it more efficient.

The line between hate-crime and terrorist attack is very, very vague. A part of this argument, too, is deciding the difference between them. And even if part of it is terrorist in nature, is it not still a hate-crime? Similiarly, abortion clinics being bombed are by no means even a majority of the hate-crimes against abortion advocates.

Well, 'terrorism' is not about the motif but about the deed. Using violence to intimidate a fragment of populace to agree with your wishes is terrorism. It doesn't matter if you use threat of bombs or threat of a knife. If someone uses threats of violence against any legally operating institution they're technically a terrorist.

The reason the law poses a generality instead of specifically outlining the groups which they would determine need protection is that many groups deserve the treatment and protection of the law from such crimes, and such has been the case in hate-crime legislation already. I would agree if a generality about sexuality was added to the clause, but I would still ward against any specification there.

I'm pretty sure that the moment someone would get beaten up for being heterosexual, there would be no problem adding this part to the legislation.
Myself I think that the protection should also apply to such minorities as fetishists, polyamorous people, crossdressers and such.

Also: your argument that one might recieve a harsher sentence *because* their crime was specifically targeting one facet of a said individual is already present in today's justice system WITHOUT further specification from a hate-crime legislation. Criminal motivs and purpose have always played some part in determining the degree to which the criminal might be punished, but the same problems posed there would be posed in this situation-- proving that it was, in fact, a hate-crime and not just a random act of violence. Granted, this is something that can usually be done with ease in most such cases.

Hate crime legislation is necessary to make *sure* those people get a harsher sentence. Not every judge in America is sympatethic to every minority there is and often having clear guidelines makes giving a verdict simpler. And sometimes judges too can be racists, homophobes, or whatever other haters.

Not necessarily. To many, a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime, and in terms of psychological therapy, even in this minor division there are many exceptions. Many would argue that, committing crimes with no real intent is far more disturbing than targeting any one person-- because that CAN be reformed. Truth be told, many bigots can be turned from this habit, and can be generally good people. Every day criminals though, committing violence without heed to any real social factors, are typically far more dangerous. However, specific attacks like those in hate-crimes show premeditation and narrow-minded intent, so while they may not necessarily be more dangerous, they are treated with greater concern by the American justice system.

There's no such thing as commiting a crime 'with no real intent', unless someone is mentally ill.
There's always a motif. Either greed, substance abuse, personal revenge or ideological hatred. People who actually *believe* that hurting others is positive are the hardest to reform.
Also, I don't understand how hate-crimes can be called a 'habit' and I know that bigots are statistically less likely to be good people outside their bigotry.

Please understand, we're talking here about people who actually go and search out for a member of a specific minority to attack them. Skinheads, KKK members, lynchers, people who believe they'll waging a 'holy war' of some sort.
It's not about punishing a thug more because the guy he mugged turned out to be a Buddhist, it's about dealing harsher punishment to a special, really dangerous kind of criminals. There's no reason to defend them regardless of ones political orientation.

[Monica]

I have no problem with all sexual preferences being protected under the hate crime legislation. But right now, it's only homosexual people that are targets of hate-motivated attacks. Other groups do not suffer problems of th is magnitude.

That is by no means true, just the majority of these crimes are based homosexuals. I understand where you are coming from, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that only one sexual following recieve specific protection, even if the rest of them aren't very threatened at the moment.

I'm pretty sure that the moment someone would get beaten up for being heterosexual, there would be no problem adding this part to the legislation.
Myself I think that the protection should also apply to such minorities as fetishists, polyamorous people, crossdressers and such.

I'm almost positive that no such thing would happen. I treat such statements as I would a minority claiming foul of the justice system where the is none. Insinuating that the U.S. legislature is actively biased in this manner is somewhat bothersome. This isn't a matter of who's getting beat up and who isn't, but what underlines a justification for such legislation.

Hate crime legislation is necessary to make *sure* those people get a harsher sentence. Not every judge in America is sympatethic to every minority there is and often having clear guidelines makes giving a verdict simpler. And sometimes judges too can be racists, homophobes, or whatever other haters.

Most modern judges are not bigots, homophobes, and racists-- and if they are, they are at least objective when it comes to dealing with it in a court. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief, but that doesn't mean I don't have plenty of homosexual friends, the ability to cooperate objectively with them, or have complete acceptance of it. Also, we have a safeguard against such judges-- the jury. Granted, some cultural patterns in courts can work against that system even further, in today's times its rarely seen-- especially further considering the appeals system, and the active checks and balances one can perform to ward off such occurings.

There's no such thing as commiting a crime 'with no real intent', unless someone is mentally ill.
There's always a motif. Either greed, substance abuse, personal revenge or ideological hatred. People who actually *believe* that hurting others is positive are the hardest to reform.

I'm talking mostly about nondiscrimatory violence and activity. Most criminals are nondiscriminatory: in that they will steal or abuse anyone to satisfy their needs. Hate-crime criminals are discriminatory-- in that they committ the crime not for some idealic satisfaction, but for the perpetuation of an emotion or personal stance. Nondiscrimatory violence, in the context of social targetting, is "without intent". As far as committing the crime itself, yes, there is a base intent. The hardest people to reform are those who do not see the difference between right and wrong (nondiscriminatory), which to some degree, would apply to the senario which you emphasize (hurting others is positive).

Also, I don't understand how hate-crimes can be called a 'habit' and I know that bigots are statistically less likely to be good people outside their bigotry.

Don't say that unless you actually expect you can provide said statistic for that outrageous statement. Bigotry does, by no means, mark someone as a horrible person. Bigotry is seen everywhere, and in every community-- and while it is no small thing, it does not immediately chalk someone up to a hellish blasphemy of all that is good and just. Many "bigots" are that way because they do not understand that which they persecute, or have been raised in a violent mindset. Bigots are those who take a personal stance and magnify it horribly, to the point at which violence is rationalized to them. Often times, psychologically, bigots learn to coexist with things they discriminate against after they've had extended contact with it. They learn to accept, which is a concept much of our nation has been based upon.

Please understand, we're talking here about people who actually go and search out for a member of a specific minority to attack them. Skinheads, KKK members, lynchers, people who believe they'll waging a 'holy war' of some sort.

No we aren't. Specifically, you said bigots. Bigots are by no means strictly extremists-- it is a much larger, more general term. However, when it comes to hate crimes, more extremist bigot-based groups are the subject of concern, so yes. Though, I find your selection of groups to be somewhat imbalanced, representatively, but to no real matter.

[Celestial Goblin]

That is by no means true, just the majority of these crimes are based homosexuals. I understand where you are coming from, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that only one sexual following recieve specific protection, even if the rest of them aren't very threatened at the moment.

If one group is a subject of attacks while other groups as you put it 'aren't very threatened at the moment' then it would unreasonable *not to* give that group special protection.
Law is supposed to protect those that need protection, that's all it needs to do.

I'm almost positive that no such thing would happen. I treat such statements as I would a minority claiming foul of the justice system where the is none. Insinuating that the U.S. legislature is actively biased in this manner is somewhat bothersome. This isn't a matter of who's getting beat up and who isn't, but what underlines a justification for such legislation.

All legislature actively biased, no. But if USA has homophobes/racists/whatever amongst all stratas of society, judges won't be an exception. And if the legislature isn't biased, then the law won't really make a difference, won't it?
If someone is getting beaten up for the way they were born, it is all justification a law needs.

Most modern judges are not bigots, homophobes, and racists-- and if they are, they are at least objective when it comes to dealing with it in a court. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief, but that doesn't mean I don't have plenty of homosexual friends, the ability to cooperate objectively with them, or have complete acceptance of it.

Sorry, what do you mean by 'personal belief'? As in homosexuality being a personal choice? Or did I get you wrong?

Also, we have a safeguard against such judges-- the jury. Granted, some cultural patterns in courts can work against that system even further, in today's times its rarely seen-- especially further considering the appeals system, and the active checks and balances one can perform to ward off such occurings.

If the American system is so fair, what's the problem with adding a law that will be an extra safe-guard against the problem?
AFAIK, the first hate crime legislation about ethnic minorities was creates especially because judges in the rural states were more likely to pardon racists and needed oversight from federal goverment. You can't really say that homophobia is less prevalent in America than racism... You can't really say that homophobia doesn't participate in American politics...

I'm talking mostly about nondiscrimatory violence and activity. Most criminals are nondiscriminatory: in that they will steal or abuse anyone to satisfy their needs. Hate-crime criminals are discriminatory-- in that they committ the crime not for some idealic satisfaction, but for the perpetuation of an emotion or personal stance. Nondiscrimatory violence, in the context of social targetting, is "without intent". As far as committing the crime itself, yes, there is a base intent. The hardest people to reform are those who do not see the difference between right and wrong (nondiscriminatory), which to some degree, would apply to the senario which you emphasize (hurting others is positive).

Criminals who can't see 'right from wrong' would be psychopats and those are possible to reform. It's just that their reforming consists on making the *afraid* of going back to prison.
People who believe that 'hurting others is positive' would be the same, but I think in some cases it *is* possible to convince them that hurting others is not good. Racists and homophobes are often victims of ideologies passed trough their peers and families. This is easier to change than lack of emotions whatsover.

Don't say that unless you actually expect you can provide said statistic for that outrageous statement. Bigotry does, by no means, mark someone as a horrible person. Bigotry is seen everywhere, and in every community-- and while it is no small thing, it does not immediately chalk someone up to a hellish blasphemy of all that is good and just. Many "bigots" are that way because they do not understand that which they persecute, or have been raised in a violent mindset. Bigots are those who take a personal stance and magnify it horribly, to the point at which violence is rationalized to them. Often times, psychologically, bigots learn to coexist with things they discriminate against after they've had extended contact with it. They learn to accept, which is a concept much of our nation has been based upon.
Bigotry does make a person evil. It's not always a persons sole fault for being bigoted and many people are able to banish their bigotry. But the moment someone acts on their bigotry, they are nothing else but evil. If someone learns to accept others, then that person isn't a bigot.
But anyway, we might have different definitions of what 'bigot' means. To me someone who is simply uncomfortable around homosexuals is not yet a bigot.
Someone who supports discrimination of homosexuals in any way already is a bigot.

No we aren't. Specifically, you said bigots. Bigots are by no means strictly extremists-- it is a much larger, more general term. However, when it comes to hate crimes, more extremist bigot-based groups are the subject of concern, so yes. Though, I find your selection of groups to be somewhat imbalanced, representatively, but to no real matter.

Hate crime legislation doesn't target anyone for being a bigot in their own head or for stating bigoted beliefs. It targets those bigots who act out on their bigotry and for such there is no excuse.

What are you missing in my selection of groups? I hope you don't feel that any of people are listed are in any way justified with what they are doing?

[Monica]

If one group is a subject of attacks while other groups as you put it 'aren't very threatened at the moment' then it would unreasonable *not to* give that group special protection.
Law is supposed to protect those that need protection, that's all it needs to do.

Our justice system is enacted to protect all peoples, whether they need the protection or not. That's why.

All legislature actively biased, no. But if USA has homophobes/racists/whatever amongst all stratas of society, judges won't be an exception.

The there is a far more deep-seated problem there, but it does not necessarily have to do with legislation. Similiarly, for every judge biased against such groups, there is a judge who is biased in defense of those groups. Objectivity is the judge's calling, but human flaw is present in everything.

And if the legislature isn't biased, then the law won't really make a difference, won't it?
If someone is getting beaten up for the way they were born, it is all justification a law needs.

That's like saying "well I already have a shirt on, and its plenty enough protection from the elements, but because its only benefiting why don't I put on yet another shirt!" This is a question of "will it help or not", but "is this required, or is it overkill." Though, I'm not particularly arguing against it, just for a generality clause.

Sorry, what do you mean by 'personal belief'? As in homosexuality being a personal choice? Or did I get you wrong?

"Personally, I'm not fond of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief"-- as in, MY belief. I was saying that my personal belief doesn't necessarily agree with homosexuality, not that I thought homosexuality was a personal belief. The word flow was kind of strange, should have clarified.

Criminals who can't see 'right from wrong' would be psychopats and those are possible to reform. It's just that their reforming consists on making the *afraid* of going back to prison.

It absolutely does not! Firstly, intimidation as a means of molding behaviour is an illegal practice. Secondly, it's not at all a good means of reforming any criminal.

People who believe that 'hurting others is positive' would be the same, but I think in some cases it *is* possible to convince them that hurting others is not good. Racists and homophobes are often victims of ideologies passed trough their peers and families. This is easier to change than lack of emotions whatsover.

Change that "some" to "most" and I entirely agree.

To me someone who is simply uncomfortable around homosexuals is not yet a bigot.
Someone who supports discrimination of homosexuals in any way already is a bigot.

I agree, though it could be any number of things a bigot would discriminate against.

What are you missing in my selection of groups? I hope you don't feel that any of people are listed are in any way justified with what they are doing?

No, I just found it curious that you stuck to Skinheads, KKK, and "holy crusaders" instead of a list which include more worldly examples. I.E.-- I think it wasn't geographically sound, but I was just being picky, not really disagreeing. ;)

[Celestial Goblin]

Our justice system is enacted to protect all peoples, whether they need the protection or not. That's why.

'protect all people regardless if they need protection or not' is a completely absurd sentence that cannot be parsed logically.
You can't protect people if they've got nothing to be protected from.
Also, hate-crime legislation doesn't strip away protection from anyone, it simply adds extra protective measure to where it is currently needed.

The there is a far more deep-seated problem there, but it does not necessarily have to do with legislation. Similiarly, for every judge biased against such groups, there is a judge who is biased in defense of those groups. Objectivity is the judge's calling, but human flaw is present in everything.

The problem of judge's prejudice can be solved with legislation and there exists no other solution.
Also, how exactly it is possible to be 'biased in someone's defense? And how is that supposed to make up for the first bias?

That's like saying "well I already have a shirt on, and its plenty enough protection from the elements, but because its only benefiting why don't I put on yet another shirt!" This is a question of "will it help or not", but "is this required, or is it overkill." Though, I'm not particularly arguing against it, just for a generality clause.

Since it's toughening of laws we're talking about, it won't cost anything but it can potentially save human lives and eliminate very dangerous people from the society.
It's not like putting on an extra shirt, it's like packing an extra shirt when you are going on a trip to a place you don't know what weather to expect.

"Personally, I'm not fond of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief"-- as in, MY belief. I was saying that my personal belief doesn't necessarily agree with homosexuality, not that I thought homosexuality was a personal belief. The word flow was kind of strange, should have clarified.

Uh...
As to say, if you can honestly say you don't 'agree' with somebody else sexual preference, there's something very wrong.
I can't even understand how a person can 'agree' with somebody else personal matter. To me it sounds like 'I don't agree with you having blonde hair' or similarly absurd.
Remember that you and only you are responsible for your personal beliefs, that's why they are called personal. Beliefs are not something you are born with.

It absolutely does not! Firstly, intimidation as a means of molding behaviour is an illegal practice. Secondly, it's not at all a good means of reforming any criminal.

Deterring criminals from crime by the threat of jail time is illegal?
And doesn't work?
Then what? A slap on the wrist? Yoga meditation?

I agree, though it could be any number of things a bigot would discriminate against.

Yes. In this case we're discussing homosexuality because that's what politicians oppose.
You can be a bigot against all kinds of stuff.

No, I just found it curious that you stuck to Skinheads, KKK, and "holy crusaders" instead of a list which include more worldly examples. I.E.-- I think it wasn't geographically sound, but I was just being picky, not really disagreeing. ;)

I'm afraid those are actually very worldly. You'll find a variety of those on all continents. And I don't really want to bring specific groups form countries so not to tangle politics into the discussion.

[Monica]

'protect all people regardless if they need protection or not' is a completely absurd sentence that cannot be parsed logically.
You can't protect people if they've got nothing to be protected from.
Also, hate-crime legislation doesn't strip away protection from anyone, it simply adds extra protective measure to where it is currently needed.

I'm not currently being attacked. In fact, I'm rather safe from any sort of hate-crime. I dont' have anything to worry about. That doesn't mean I won't be attacked or threatened, ever, and it doesn't mean I don't deserve that protection should the need arise. It makes perfect sense: justice alots to provide protection for everyone if and when they need it, not just to those who immediately make use of that.

The problem of judge's prejudice can be solved with legislation and there exists no other solution.
Also, how exactly it is possible to be 'biased in someone's defense? And how is that supposed to make up for the first bias?

A judge can be biased towards enacting certain protections whereas an objective judge might not, just as a biased judge can be against enacting protections that an objective judge might opt to use.

Since it's toughening of laws we're talking about, it won't cost anything but it can potentially save human lives and eliminate very dangerous people from the society.
It's not like putting on an extra shirt, it's like packing an extra shirt when you are going on a trip to a place you don't know what weather to expect.

No, their "lives" are just as protected as they had always been. Just those who committ such acts would be punished more accordingly. And yes, it does "cost" something. Again, it's a matter of efficiency and management-- it's also further considering that, if we add this clause, are we going to have to add another later to be fair to another factor in this situation?

Uh...
As to say, if you can honestly say you don't 'agree' with somebody else sexual preference, there's something very wrong.
I can't even understand how a person can 'agree' with somebody else personal matter. To me it sounds like 'I don't agree with you having blonde hair' or similarly absurd.
Remember that you and only you are responsible for your personal beliefs, that's why they are called personal. Beliefs are not something you are born with.

Okay then, I'll strip it down further for you: my religious following doesn't agree with homosexuality. That's it. That's my belief, and I stated it rather clearly, or so I thought. Granted, you'll also see that I said that this belief does not hinder the fact that I am friends with many homosexuals, cooperate avidly with them, and embrace them in every social aspect.

And yes, I'm very aware of what a personal belief is, that's why I said it.

Deterring criminals from crime by the threat of jail time is illegal?
And doesn't work?
Then what? A slap on the wrist? Yoga meditation?

Yes, it is. In the psychological community, reforming someone by making them inherently "afraid" of jail is immoral. Teaching them the wrongs of their crime, though, is quite acceptable. I wouldn't have disagreed with you if you'd said that they reform them by making them mindful of consequences. But being mindful of something and teaching them to be afraid are entirely different things.

In this case we're discussing homosexuality because that's what politicians oppose.

Some of them.

I'm afraid those are actually very worldly. You'll find a variety of those on all continents. And I don't really want to bring specific groups form countries so not to tangle politics into the discussion.

I don't mean, literally, worldly, but descending of all viewpoints. Its just that the list envolved mostly stereotypical groups associated commonly with it, and wasn't entirely encompassing of the matter. Like I said though, I doesn't matter, I was just being picky.

[Celestial Goblin]

I'm not currently being attacked. In fact, I'm rather safe from any sort of hate-crime. I dont' have anything to worry about. That doesn't mean I won't be attacked or threatened, ever, and it doesn't mean I don't deserve that protection should the need arise.

Since you are currently safe, why are you denying others the same right?
Understand that some people need an extra protection to be as safe as you.

It makes perfect sense: justice alots to provide protection for everyone if and when they need it, not just to those who immediately make use of that.

Making immediate use of justice? What? Are you saying it's okay to leave someone without protection because they are alone in their problem?

A judge can be biased towards enacting certain protections whereas an objective judge might not, just as a biased judge can be against enacting protections that an objective judge might opt to use.

You can't be biased towards protecting people from harm. And I've yet to hear about a case in which a judge was *too* sympatethic towards a homosexual victim.

No, their "lives" are just as protected as they had always been. Just those who committ such acts would be punished more accordingly. And yes, it does "cost" something. Again, it's a matter of efficiency and management-- it's also further considering that, if we add this clause, are we going to have to add another later to be fair to another factor in this situation?

The legislation is supposed to improve efficiency and management, not decrease it. You said yourself that biased homophobic judges can be countered by taking the matter to higher courts and such. There should be no need for such legal battles.

Okay then, I'll strip it down further for you: my religious following doesn't agree with homosexuality. That's it. That's my belief, and I stated it rather clearly, or so I thought. Granted, you'll also see that I said that this belief does not hinder the fact that I am friends with many homosexuals, cooperate avidly with them, and embrace them in every social aspect.

I think your belief might still, at least subconciously be affecting your views on this particular matter. It's good you are not a homophobe yourself of course, but I really think that if not for your particular belief you wouldn't be looking for every possible justification against the hate crime laws.
Also, I won't ask details about your religious creed since that's a private matter. But if you are a Christian, then I don't think Christianity actually requires you to 'not approve' of homosexuals. It's something many priests claim, but there's no substance to that.

If(assuming you're indeed Christian or a monotheist anyway) you believe in concience, you should really follow that concience about the matter.

Yes, it is. In the psychological community, reforming someone by making them inherently "afraid" of jail is immoral. Teaching them the wrongs of their crime, though, is quite acceptable. I wouldn't have disagreed with you if you'd said that they reform them by making them mindful of consequences. But being mindful of something and teaching them to be afraid are entirely different things.

I'm afraid that the psychological community is idealistic here.
Jails are unpleasant places and regardless if doctors accept that or not, people who leave them are not eager to return.
Though I am not advocating actively making prisoners suffer. I simply argue that hate criminals will become less dangerous when their sentences will be longer.

[Monica]

Since you are currently safe, why are you denying others the same right?
Understand that some people need an extra protection to be as safe as you.

You didn't get the entire purpose of my argument. I'm arguing that, the reason many are opposed to it is because they don't feel they really need that extra protection. I'm not agreeing with that by any means, but it is an example of what someone might refute your argument with.

Making immediate use of justice? What? Are you saying it's okay to leave someone without protection because they are alone in their problem?

Did you even read what I just said? What I said alotted to that the justice system is passive, and provides everyone equal protection without discrimination or specification.

You can't be biased towards protecting people from harm. And I've yet to hear about a case in which a judge was *too* sympatethic towards a homosexual victim.

Yes, yes you can. Bias in law is "having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective". Bias has and is a two-sided coin, but you should understand that bias isn't particularly "bad", its just subjective as opposed to objective.

The entire point of my argument is that a biased judge might enact protection that is not needed, whereas suitable protection might already be in place. Overly-sympathetic legislation is what this would safe-guard against, so that no one recieves special treatment where it might not be needed. Also, just because you haven't seen such a case doesn't mean it has happened, will happen, or has the potential to happen. That's the "I've never seen this, therefore it cannot be real or ever exist!" fallacy if I've ever seen it. Prejudice as a means for bias is only a small part of what we might see in the courtroom, sadly.

I think your belief might still, at least subconciously be affecting your views on this particular matter. It's good you are not a homophobe yourself of course, but I really think that if not for your particular belief you wouldn't be looking for every possible justification against the hate crime laws.

My best friend, whom was my companion through college as a roomate even, was a lesbian. She died of AIDS three years ago, and she was a great Christian, a great person, and very knowledgeable of the situation homosexuals face in society. Please, don't question my motives here. Part of debate is giving equal representation to all sides; by no means do I agree with every argument I have put forth, I am merely providing that stance to show where one might refute the questions and statements that you have raised.

Of coures my beliefs are affecting how I respond to this debate, but as I've clarified, most of what I've been saying are mere refutes-- not really what I believe.

Also, I won't ask details about your religious creed since that's a private matter. But if you are a Christian, then I don't think Christianity actually requires you to 'not approve' of homosexuals. It's something many priests claim, but there's no substance to that.

I'm United Methodist (Christian - Protestant), and a rising majority of my denomination is committing to a new approach to homosexuality. Our religion teaches us that, in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin (granted, I personally do not think homosexuality is a sin). We use this as justification to say that, since we are all sinners (part of Christianity is coming to terms with this), then we should treat homosexuals just as we do each other, and without the prejuidice others would show.

I'm afraid that the psychological community is idealistic here.
Jails are unpleasant places and regardless if doctors accept that or not, people who leave them are not eager to return.
Though I am not advocating actively making prisoners suffer. I simply argue that hate criminals will become less dangerous when their sentences will be longer.

Entirely true, psychology is an idealistic field. We always try to instill morales of discernment between crime and consequence in reformed individuals, but when that fails, usually fear of consequence DOES become the motivator-- as much as we don't want that to happen.

TO CLARIFY: I personally belief that a generality clause, including "sexuality" with no further specifications, should be added to hate-crime legislation. While legislaters are on the subject, I would also like them to further consider and other factors they may wish to add, so that no amendments will need to be made in the future.

[Celestial Goblin]

You didn't get the entire purpose of my argument. I'm arguing that, the reason many are opposed to it is because they don't feel they really need that extra protection. I'm not agreeing with that by any means, but it is an example of what someone might refute your argument with.

Well, sorry then. I was arguing with the assumption it is your personal position, not an example of attitudes you know from others.
Anyway, I am sure that minorities of any kind do need extra protection to balance the fact that minorities are vulnerable.

Did you even read what I just said? What I said alotted to that the justice system is passive, and provides everyone equal protection without discrimination or specification.

I could argue that passing this law would not make things less equal. All people would be equally protected from violence from homophobes. A person doesn't have to *really* be a homosexual to fall victim to anti-homosexual hate crimes.

Yes, yes you can. Bias in law is "having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective". Bias has and is a two-sided coin, but you should understand that bias isn't particularly "bad", its just subjective as opposed to objective.

If there would exist a pro-homosexual bias amongst judges, I am sure that legislation could be passed to counter that.
Also, if we assume that homosexuals simply deserve equal rights, then to be biased in their favor a judge would have to believe that they deserve *more* rights than heterosexuals. Such a thing never happened, neither in USA or in Europe. (unless we have different definitions of equal rights and such)

The entire point of my argument is that a biased judge might enact protection that is not needed, whereas suitable protection might already be in place. Overly-sympathetic legislation is what this would safe-guard against, so that no one recieves special treatment where it might not be needed. Also, just because you haven't seen such a case doesn't mean it has happened, will happen, or has the potential to happen. That's the "I've never seen this, therefore it cannot be real or ever exist!" fallacy if I've ever seen it. Prejudice as a means for bias is only a small part of what we might see in the courtroom, sadly.

(Note that a judge does not enact 'protection' but gives a sentence. Giving a harsher sentence is not a 'reward' to the victim.)
Pro-homosexual bias is something that exists only in theory. You say it *could* happen.
Anti-homosexual bias is in my opinion more likely, at least in today's society.
I also think that anti-homosexual bias in action can cause much more harm than the theoretical pro-homosexual bias.

My best friend, whom was my companion through college as a roomate even, was a lesbian. She died of AIDS three years ago, and she was a great Christian, a great person, and very knowledgeable of the situation homosexuals face in society. Please, don't question my motives here. Part of debate is giving equal representation to all sides; by no means do I agree with every argument I have put forth, I am merely providing that stance to show where one might refute the questions and statements that you have raised.

It would make it easier if you'd state from the very beggining which arguments you agree with and which are given for informative purposes.
It's a thing 'playing devil's advocate' and it can be confusing if it's not stated from the start.

Now, I won't dig into or question your personal experiences. It's your good will to mention details about your life and a passed away friend. I assume you say what you really feel.

I'm United Methodist (Christian - Protestant), and a rising majority of my denomination is committing to a new approach to homosexuality. Our religion teaches us that, in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin (granted, I personally do not think homosexuality is a sin). We use this as justification to say that, since we are all sinners (part of Christianity is coming to terms with this), then we should treat homosexuals just as we do each other, and without the prejuidice others would show.

If you don't treat homosexuality as a sin then we shouldn't be arguing. Myself I am sympatethic towards religion and I'm happy when I see attitude towards sexuality becoming normal in many denominations.
A belief that homosexuality is a sin, no matter if it's big or small, is something that in my opinion cannot be accepted. But that's a different topic.

Entirely true, psychology is an idealistic field. We always try to instill morales of discernment between crime and consequence in reformed individuals, but when that fails, usually fear of consequence DOES become the motivator-- as much as we don't want that to happen.

I'm sure that the justice system would be improved if idealistic psychologists would get more to say about things.
But the way things are right now, jail is a deterrent and I'm basing my opinions on the current state of it.

TO CLARIFY: I personally belief that a generality clause, including "sexuality" with no further specifications, should be added to hate-crime legislation. While legislaters are on the subject, I would also like them to further consider and other factors they may wish to add, so that no amendments will need to be made in the future.

I also believe that this would be a better solution.
Both to prepare for the future and because it would save the unpleasant task of using legal language to define what 'homosexuality' actually is.

I apologize if I got you nervous over this matter. It's something very important to me, so I can't just ignore the matter and not respond to the concerns raised. But when it comes to the things I actually care about so much, we seem to have no disagreements.

[Monica]

Well, sorry then. I was arguing with the assumption it is your personal position, not an example of attitudes you know from others.
Anyway, I am sure that minorities of any kind do need extra protection to balance the fact that minorities are vulnerable.

They're pretty sturdy when they need to be.

could argue that passing this law would not make things less equal. All people would be equally protected from violence from homophobes. A person doesn't have to *really* be a homosexual to fall victim to anti-homosexual hate crimes.

If you consider extra protection to be unequal to those who don't receive such boosted protection, then one might say it is unequal. Granted, we also give extra protection to abused teenager mothers, and children. Essentially I agree with you on that matter.

If there would exist a pro-homosexual bias amongst judges, I am sure that legislation could be passed to counter that.

As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of pro-homosexual judges. Just because they haven't made rulings for this hate-crime amendment doesn't mean they aren't biased, or that they exist.

Also, if we assume that homosexuals simply deserve equal rights, then to be biased in their favor a judge would have to believe that they deserve *more* rights than heterosexuals.

This isn't about "equal rights", this is about a clause in a hate-crime legislation for sexuality. It's not granting or taking away rights from anyone. Also, we should be careful about only representing two sexualities in this argument.

Pro-homosexual bias is something that exists only in theory. You say it *could* happen.
Anti-homosexual bias is in my opinion more likely, at least in today's society.
I also think that anti-homosexual bias in action can cause much more harm than the theoretical pro-homosexual bias.

There are plenty of judges representing a pro-homosexual standpoint. Same with congressmen and legislatures. It is seen in today's society, but it gets very little spotlight-- because, and I will agree with you on this, anti-homosexual bias tends to be far more negative.

It would make it easier if you'd state from the very beggining which arguments you agree with and which are given for informative purposes.
It's a thing 'playing devil's advocate' and it can be confusing if it's not stated from the start.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a side you don't necessarily agree with, especially in a debate. If I'd told you that little story before-hand, you wouldn't have analyzed what I had to say so strictly.

And, actually, I clarified quite clearly those beliefs I stood by. Those sentences started with the adverd "personally", followed by a comma.

If you don't treat homosexuality as a sin then we shouldn't be arguing. Myself I am sympatethic towards religion and I'm happy when I see attitude towards sexuality becoming normal in many denominations.
A belief that homosexuality is a sin, no matter if it's big or small, is something that in my opinion cannot be accepted. But that's a different topic.

We're not arguing it, that is simply the catholic (meaning, a united church, not a denomination) accepted stance of Christians. Not everyone agrees with it, you certainly don't have to, but its part of our doctrine (to which you are inclined to believe otherwise). Its an entirely different debate though, and we should probably set it up sometime.

I apologize if I got you nervous over this matter. It's something very important to me, so I can't just ignore the matter and not respond to the concerns raised. But when it comes to the things I actually care about so much, we seem to have no disagreements.

My homeboard is strictly a means for serious debate and discussion-- and I sometimes drag some of our tendencies to other forums. I take this worldly stance, in that I offer refutes whereas I don't necessarily agree with it, to cover a number of perspectives so that we might analyze the implications of such. I never take anything in a debate like this as personal, and I certainly wouldn't get into a hostile argument with another here-- it's just immature, as most of us are friends or could be, will be. Besides, I think there is very little room for hypocrisy with any party on a forum like this, considering what we aspire to on other areas. :) I think we all have to keep a very open mind here.

[Celestial Goblin]

To sum it up, if you are okay with having a hate-crime law that has a single provision for 'sexuality' without listing what sexualities are protected, I am okay with that.
Some things you said are things I completely disagree with, but those are things not directly related to the topic of hate crime law.

I'd tell you, I'd rather have a non-specific hate crime law rather than one that has a list of minorities to protect. But I rather have the currently proposed one than nothing. Pretty much that.

[RubySlippers]

Wel I'm still opposed tot he entire Federalizing of Hate Crime for behaviour. Yes I'm Gay but its not like being in a handicapped state (I use a wheelchair) or a woman or of a particular race frankly even in regards to religion such laws shouldn't be used. I feel leave such matters to the states and legitimate laws regarding such violence against anyone. Federal Laws should only involve matters that affects the entire nation criminal racketeering in organized crime and the like.

Simple question- is it more evil to kill a woman due to hate than a white male due to hate- no its both equal and should be treated with no differnce in the law.