Republican Political Hackery and the Hate Crimes Bill

During the same historic week in which marriage equality was passed in Maine, the Republicans -- the self-proclaimed party of emancipation and "the liberty tree" -- attempted to derail hate crimes legislation with some political trickery that succeeded in allowing Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to accuse the Democrats of protecting pedophiles. Stay with me on this.

Rep. Steve King (R-Batshittia) introduced an amendment to the hate crimes bill calling for the term "sexual orientation" to exclude "pedophiles" even though the bill specifically defines sexual orientation as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." Pedophelia, as everyone knows, is nonconsensual no matter who engages in it.

Not only was King insinuating the derogatory stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles, but his amendment would've further validated this stereotype by writing it into the legal record. By the way, Joe the Plumber -- another very serious leader of the Republican Party -- advanced the same stereotype this week when he said that he'd never let his "gay friends" anywhere near his kids. Classy. Nevertheless, King making this kind of distinction is sort of like amending civil rights legislation with: "the term 'African Americans' shall not include anyone who rapes white women." It elevates a stereotype while denying one exists. Pretty slick -- in a creepy, sinister kind of way.

Obviously, the point of King's amendment was neither to help to separate the LGBT community from nonconsensual sexual deviants, nor was it designed to make sure pedophiles weren't covered under the hate crimes law. King's intention was absolutely to trick Democrats into voting against the amendment -- and they did -- thus allowing the Republicans to say that Democrats are with the pedophiles.

So the Republicans are seeking a way out of their current mess by defining the Democrats as the party of pedophilia, even though the GOP's previous attempts to paint the Democrats as the pro-terrorist, anti-American party failed miserably to prevent landslide Democratic victories in the last two general elections.

But of course King's stupid amendment trick allowed Sean Hannity to repeat throughout his Tuesday night show things like, "Is it safe to say that Democrats were willing to protect pedophiles?" Limbaugh, meanwhile, remarked that the Democrats are "carving out protection for perverts." This from a guy who successfully wiggled out of a legal situation involving the possession of prescription E.D. meds (not in his name) during a stag trip to a destination apparently known for sexual tourism.

Here's the thing, though. Hannity, Limbaugh, King and 166 House Republicans are decidedly against the hate crimes bill. The legislation, as passed by the House, specifically defines hate crimes as being "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." Again, Hannity, King and the rest are absolutely opposed to this.

So while the Republicans have vocally and repeatedly expressed their position against "protecting pedophiles," it can be said -- and, quoting King, "it's a matter of record" -- that they're also against protecting women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious people and disabled people, among others.

Get it?

Why don't you want to protect religious people, Hannity? Why don't you want to protect disabled people, Limbaugh? Why don't you want to protect women, Congresswoman Foxx? Why do you, Mr. King, support "legal protections" for criminals who brutalize and often savagely kill Christians, Jewish people, amputees and the mentally challenged -- regardless of whether they're veterans, senior citizens, Republicans or dittoheads? (Contrary to what Hannity was saying on his show about the bill not including veterans, I'm pretty sure veterans can be disabled, female, black, religious or ethnically non-Anglo. Was Hannity expecting the bill to include every occupation, too? Would that've changed his support in some way?)

The House Democrats, for their part, might've missed an opportunity here, though. Perhaps they should've allowed King's derogatory and disingenuous amendment to pass and then quietly pulled it out in conference (should it get that far). This way, the Democrats could've forced King's trickery to backfire against the Republicans. When the bill with the King amendment came up for a vote on the floor, not only would the Republicans have voted against legal protections for all of the above groups, but they would've voted against King's amendment and thus in favor of "carving out legal protections for perverts" and "pedophiles."

The Democrats didn't do this, however. Much to their credit. And that says a lot about how they regard the seriousness of this legislation. Whether or not you agree with the spirit of hate crimes legislation, it's not an issue that lends itself to political hackery. And it doesn't really matter if these are crimes against a hundred people or a thousand people or if it's just one boy in Laramie -- or two black men in Texas -- this is legislation about real people who were (or will be) killed for no reason other than for being perceived as different.

Vote for the bill or vote against it. Support it or denounce it. Make your case with due respect for what this sort of thing involves. Just don't play politics with it.

So you can bet Congressman King and his staff are really, really proud of their clever little hack trap, and I'm sure the scripts for the predictable "liberals are with the pedophiles" ads are already being worked up for the 2010 midterms. The thing is, Americans aren't buying this crap on a stick from the Republicans anymore. Coupled with their lengthy record of incompetence and ridiculousness, it's only succeeding in making them look cheaper and less serious than they were yesterday and the day before.

BobCesca.com

 

Comments

[flossophy]

Hey Bob, when has government ever been able to legislate ha`te out of people's minds... they can't even count the votes correctly, what makes you think they can do this with any success.

But that little detail won't stop the Thought Police...

If only they could legislate Republicanism out of people's minds, then everything would be better.

[johnbdonovan]

The effort to avoid legitimizing homosexuality isn't based on hate but on the love of children that is so strong that we want them to have growing-up influences that are specific to the gender of their parents. I've been around people for years who feel as I do and I've never heard a hateful comment. I think using that word is a bit of phony rhetoric that is working right now but it will clash with reality at some point here.

[cg509]

What I can't figure is how Cesca can say that sexual orientation is defined in the bill. I read it and the only definition was for gender identity. This invalidates his whole article for me.

[lebensfroh99]

My husband is in law enforcement (25 years now). He arrested several Native Americans for assaulting and severely injuring a black woman. According to the perps: Quote "We don't want blacks on our rez". The local prosecuter wanted to apply the hate crime rule, but wasn't allowed to. Reason? you ask. The perps were a Minority. Moral of the story: white perps = hate crime. Minority perps = no hate crime.

[Ohsnap]

I think this is a bit disingenous. First, since it happened on the reservation, the tribal courts will likely try the case first. It is a question of who has jurisdiction. Second, I think you are full of B.S.

[JohnBisceglia]

I wonder if Bob Cesca had any idea that his article on HATE CRIMES would inspire such hateful "dialogue" on the HuffPost.

[Phaedrusnyc]

I am a liberal Democrat., anon-Christian, and a non-heterosexual. I am a rigorous thinker, a student of history and politics, and a fan of the Constitution- and, therefore, vigorously opposed to "hate crimes" legislation. I am sure I will be called a troll or worse, but anyone is free to look at various other posts I've made to decide for themselves.
I do not ally myself with bigots of any stripe. That is not why I oppose these laws. I have fought various kinds of bigotry for much of my life and will continue to do so on my behalf and that of others. I oppose these laws because the foundation of law rests upon other law. Law is based on precedent. Prosecuting someone based on the particular characteristics of their victims is a precedent. It does not distinguish between acts- simply between the possible beliefs that led to those acts. And that sort of precedent is a terrible one- one that will bite liberal, progressive, forward thinking people in the ass one of these days. Once we establish the precedent that certain beliefs can be legally worse or better than other beliefs, there is no preventing laws that will persecute us for OUR beliefs.
We should vigorously punish anyone who would infringe upon the life, liberty, or happiness of another- whether it's someone we agree with or someone we abhor. Hate crimes laws are a matter of political expedience- they are not good policy.

[StevenKeirstead]

You mistake the intent of the legislation. It is not the status of the victim that would be put on trial, though there would of course be a tangential relationship. It is not applicable to cases where the perpetrator does not explicitly state the crime was based on bias. So a white man who kills a black man in the commission of a robbery motivated solely by the money could not be prosecuted for a hate crime, because there was no hate in the motivation. On the other hand if a man kills a woman while screaming anti-female epithets, motivated by misogyny, would be prosecutable for his bias. This legal tactic is not new. Essentially it is an extension of the 1870 civil rights laws used to prosecute the suspects of the 1964 murders of Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi. But in the broader sense all trials of violent crimes take into account the mental state, the criminal intent, of the accused. Nor is the victim left out of all such trials, sentencing often considers input from victims' families.

[Phaedrusnyc]

I make no such mistake. The fact is that a precedent is still established whereby the thoughts of the perpetrator (the "hate in his motivation") alters the nature of and disposition of his crime- making the crime itself one of thought rather than action. Period. The law has always allowed for flexibility on the part of judges and juries to grant longer or shorter sentences based on mitigating and aggravating factors, and judges and juries are perfectly within their rights to decide on the maximum sentences if they have been moved by the prosecution to believe that the biases of the perpetrator factor heavily into his act. However, codifying a specific distinction between a "hate crime," and a...I don't know, "dislike crime?" changes the nature of our very notion of justice in this country, which I might remind you, is supposed to be "blind" with regard to those who are charged.
Your examples of the specifics of the law are also ones representing strict interpretation- which, when prosecutors are bringing a case, is hardly the way most law is dispensed with. Even you would have to admit that laws like these, despite their intentions, are easily manipulated for political reasons (district attorneys, for example, are elected officials.­) It is almost a given that these laws will be (and currently are) applied unequally depending on the prevailing political climate of the day.

[Ohsnap]

If I understand you right, you oppose these laws because the crime is based on the differences of opinion on the person's gender, sexual orientation, race, etc between the victim and the person committing the crime. For example, the crime is murder...a­nd the man who committed the murder indicated he killed the other because he was a fa*, and he hates fa**ots. Murder, is murder, right? So the sex, race, etc. is (or should be irrelevant, right)?

Seems perfectly, logical. However, justice is not blind. Judges do have biases, as well as the jury. If a person is homosexual, and they are violently against homosexual­ity...the worth of that person decreases significantly in the eyes of that person. Therefore, a lighter sentence for the perp. What the hate crime does is first make clear that all humans are created equal. And the very existence of a hate crime law acknowledges that other people do not always see fellow humans as equals. Because if that were the case, people would not base their judgements based on the color of their skin, sexual orientation, etc. We would not have affirmative action, etc. One could make the case that we should eliminate all judgements based on race, gender, etc. But to eliminate it without acknowledging that there is stereotypes would be like throwing out the research before you found the cure.

[Ohsnap]

A person hates gays with every ounce of their being...ye­t they do not murder. They do not assault. They just throw the person a dirty look, or make some comment. They may say to their friend that they do not like that person because he is gay. These are not punishable offenses, because no crimes were committed. Since there was no action, there was no hate crime. So there is a certain extent of hate speech that is allowed because there has to be tangible evidence to prove it. As far as I know there is no law that will put a person in jail for calling a person a fa* on television. The person who calls a person a fa* and then murders have moved from inaction to action. Did the action happen in a vacuum, or did an underlying factor drive it? Yes, the person vehemently hated gays. Which drove the murder. So, you argue, if the hate itself is a crime, then person A should be prosecuted­...No...be­cause there was no action. So that proves your point that it is the action that is punishable, and not the personal difference in opinion, right? It is these same personal beliefs that drives the level of punishment. One's bias may interfere with one's ability to sentence..­.which varies widely.

[cg509]

All thinking people should agree.

[steveinohio]

"Hate Crimes" is a ridiculous term to begin with. As far as the law is concerned, an action is legal or illegal. We already protect all oppressed groups at once when a crime is committed against them. They are a part of the protected class known as "victims." Assaulting a gay man because he's gay shouldn't be any better or worse in the eyes of the law than assaulting a white guy because you don't like the way he looked at you. Both should be prosecuted vigorously and punished.

[Ohsnap]

The insanity plea used as a defense is ridiculous, too. Do sane people murder? And if a sane person does murder, wouldn't that effectively render him an insane person? I cannot define what a sane person is, but I can define what a sane person does not do...and that is murder (as one example). So the insanity plea seems rather--obvious?

[Clay Wisner]

The blathering of Hannity, Rush, et al are ridiculous. However, hate crimes legislation is also ridiculous. It is illegal to assault someone. It is illegal to batter someone. It is illegal to murder someone. How is it "more wrong" to assault, batter, or kill a handicapped, religious, minority or gay person?
Trying to legislate the attitudes, prejudices, or beliefs of Americans is unconstitutional. Sure, we have the "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded movie house" yardstick.­. but if you are committing battery or murder -- there are already hefty penalties. Outside of a full confession of motive, how would anyone be able to actually know the inner workings of the perpetrator's mind? The James Byrd case in Jasper, TX was used as propaganda for hate crimes legislation. Well... there really wasn't any room for harsher sentences for those savages -- what point is there in tacking on some sort of thought police bonus?
Make no mistake, it starts with "hate motivated crimes" and will soon be "hate speech", then "hateful attitudes"­... and Orwell was right.
The lopsided application of such laws is already a spectacle in political correctness run amok, there really is no need to make this any worse. Enforce the laws we have. Quit inventing new grievances.

[steveinohio]

Exactly right. Vigorous prosecution of laws already on the books is the best way to fight crime. Legislating thought is unnecessary and counterproductive.

[HST]

Political hackery is all the Rethuglicans have left.

[doseoflos]

At least the GOP is no longer hiding or using "code words" to demonstrate their disdane for minorities­...they themselves linked themselves to r.ac.ists when they got offended about the report from DHS warning about hate grouops potential to solicit and recruit more "Timothy McVeigh's" and now they are trying to tear down "hate" legislatio­n... I guess they don't want their base locked up before the next election! It looks like the great southern strategy is starting to rear it's ugly head.....a­nd is abut to bite them where it counts. I hope they will reap what they are and have been sowing.

By the way I'm a former evangelical GOP'er!

[Francesca1214]

I read your profile and your comments. Congratulations on your conversion and welcome to the world.

[msully]

The thing about hate crimes is it involves the government picking winners and losers. And even after a hate crimes bill is passed, people come up with more protected classes later on that they want to retrofit. And yes, people do get killed because of the color of their clothing in some areas, due to gang colors.

Let's just take the government out of the protected class business and protect everyone equally.

By the way, I assume when Mr. Cesca states 'Pedophelia, as everyone knows, is nonconsensual no matter who engages in it,' he refers to the legal sense that minors are not considered capable of giving consent to sex. I think there are actually emotionally damaged kids out there who do express consent for sex with adults, and I'd hate to think people don't consider the adults in those relationships pedophiles.

Finally, I don't see the pressing need for the hate crime bills stated, as such, because juries are doing a pretty good job of ignoring 'gay panic' defenses and giving maximum sentences to people who commit these crimes. As a matter of fact, the two men who murdered Matthew Sheppard got life in prison, and that's only because Matthew's mother requested that they not get the death penalty.

[Bruupo]

"Let's just take the government out of the protected class business and protect everyone equally."

Including the president?

"And yes, people do get killed because of the color of their clothing in some areas, due to gang colors."

Hence the reason laws have specifically been written against gang behaviors, even though the underlying acts were already illegal.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition of pedophilia-

Pedophiles only prey on prepubescent children.

You seem to be talking about adolescents, and pederasty- but that word generally only refers to man-boy, NAMBLA, Ancient Greek horror shows.

I don't think man-adolescent female relationships have ever had their own name, except maybe "all-too-c­ommon-in-t­he-entire-­history-of­-humanity-­until-rece­ntly, except-for­-some-smal­l-towns-ar­ound-Utah-­where-they­-still-can­'t-get-eno­ugh".

Female-adolescent boy relationships are just called "Breaking News".

No child under the age of majority can legally "consent" to anything.

[MikeDu]

It seems a lot of opposition to 'hate-crime' legislation is fear that internalized hate for the 'other' may somehow become criminalized. The subtext appears to be "We WANT to continue hating blacks, and Mexicans, and arabs, and the French, and gays, and lefties. Don't take our constitutional right to hate away fom us!" Their logic is absurd of course, there will always hate as long as there are 'others' around to hate. But right-wing hate is like paedophelia. *Think* whatever you want, but you cross a line when you ACT out your degenerate impulses, resulting in victims of your actions.

[Bruupo]

Exactly, they still don't have the courage to come out of their hate closet, so they prefer to talk in vague terms about their hate tendencies.

[StevenKeirstead]

I think this is often the case. For example, Virginia Foxx has a long history of opposing gay rights in the NC and US legislatures. She seems determined to protect the free speech rights of bigots, which is fine, as repellent as many people find such speech. But she is overreaching here, in the name of protecting religion she is protecting violent criminals who don't just say hateful things, but act upon their hate.

[Cryostatic]

When a crime is commited with the intent to harm another human being, it's a hate crime. Doesn't matter what the reason behind it is. Mabye I didn't like you being black, or gay. But mabye I didn't like your shoes, or your damn hair. What makes it worse for me to attack and kill you based on the color of your skin, as opposed to the color of your shirt? I killed you, and I meant to do it. How does anything else matter? News flash: it doesn't.

A crime is a crime, and one commited with intent is a hate crime. The reasons are irrelevant. The end.

[Bruupo]

Assassination is a different crime form murder.

Explain why, genius.

Two people dead, one murdered, one assassinated. Talk about the "hate" in either till you're blue in the face, still separate crimes- same act.

The difference is the intention behind the targeting, the criminal effect intended beyond the initial act.

Simpletons keep getting caught up on this single word, "hate", because - well because they have a simplistic view of reality and fall for garbage like "all crimes are hate crimes"- but also because they don't understand that the real provisions of the bill deal with -targeting and intent-.

[Aimleft]

Yeah, buddy. And how many people do YOU know who were murdered because of the color of their shirt, or because someone didn't like their shoes?

RIIIIIGHT. You guys just keep on trying, and it never works. Thinking people don't need to play pretzels with semantics to try to justify their thinking. Why do you? Especially when, no matter how you say it, it's wrong?

[msully]

"Yeah, buddy. And how many people do YOU know who were murdered because of the color of their shirt"

Most of the front page of links in google were for New Zealand, but here's one:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5643426,00.html

[vagabondvet]

Bob, all crimes are hate crimes. Sorry to burst your bubble. All crimes represent hatred for personal freedom and property rights. Punishing people for supposed racial bias causes people to revert back to race-based thinking and causes an us-vs-them mentality.

[TheLearnedEnglishDog]

I bet some people steal so that they can feed their kids. Oops there goes your argument

[vagabondvet]

Wrong. Your lack of property does not give you claim to my property. Even if you are stealing for food, you're reappropriating my property for your gain. You hate my property rights. Try again.

[steveinohio]

Stealing to feed your kids and stealing because you don't like a gay guy...both are stealing. End of story. We have judges, whose job it is to take factors like "stealing to feed your kids" into account in sentencing. We don't need another layer of laws to punish crimes vigorously while leaving room for leniency in sentencing.

[Bruupo]

Depraved indifference in the commission of an act which results in death, injury, or even felony damage to property is a crime, yet there is no intent involved. You can't have hate without intent.

Just cause YOU hate all crimes, does not mean all crimes are hate crimes. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not at all.

It's just a dittohead mantra.

[TheLearnedEnglishDog]

The dittoheads only hate crimes when minorities commit them. That's even why some of them attack minorities

[vagabondvet]

Depraved indifference is recklessness by another name. Recklessly endangering the lives and property of others is again an example of disrespect and hatred for others.

[Aimleft]

Who's SAYING all crimes are hate crimes?

Good Grief! Think? For a second?

[USConstitution]

Bruupo - your ignorance is showing

Depraved indifference does require intent. The person must have had the intent to commit that depraved indifferent act. While the person may not have intended for the consequence - they must have intend to commit the act.

Classic example - shooting into a crowd of people without the intention of hitting anyone with the bullet. If they kill someone - they could be prosecuted for murder even though they did not intend to kill anyone. WHY - because they had intent to shoot the gun into a crowd of people.

The only type of crimes allowed without intent are strict liability crimes and those are rare, mostly minor, and the law must be written with specific guidelines.

[CTDem]

How does speeding on an empty high-way in the dead of night "represent hatred for personal freedom and property rights"? But speeding is a crime, no?

[MoeB]

Really? It is a CRIME to drive drunk. If a person is drunk and driving, and crashes and causes the death of another person, did they do so out of "hate"? Should that crime be treated the same as someone who say, murders someone in cold-blood? The result is the same...som­eone has died. The INTENT, however is different. Crimes of passion are treated differently than violent crimes. Why some people cannot wrap their heads around this simple notion is beyond me.

[Saxony]

Just as a thought, while this thread has gone far from the obvious assertion that pedophiles should not be a protected class under hate crimes law, even if hate crimes law are suspect in and of themselves, I would think that anyone from any protected class -- which of course means all others than the usual suspects -- would agree to have pedophiles excepted in an excluded class, apart from the protected classes of hate crime victims. If, for no other reason than to make clear that the protected class has no brook, no connection with such a repellent group of individuals as child molesters.

Wouldn't that be something to approve of? If only to clarify, as it surely is, that gays and other protected minorities are not in league with such a contemptible group?

It's very unclear why the rejection of such a plain amendment. Seems it would be ameliorative, not harmful.

[johnhummel]

I can only guess you didn't read the article. The amendment was rejected for two reasons:

1. Unnecessary - the bill defines "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality" - which means the long list read by Congressman King about people wanting to have sex with animals, children, cars, etc, etc, etc are already exempt.

2. Because of the subtle form of bigotry. Again, as the article mentions (did you read it?), specifying "Oh, we meant you can't discriminate against homosexuality - except when its in the case of child rape" leaves in the implication that homosexuals want to rape children.

Again - did you read the article, because Mr. Cesca pretty well lays out why the amendment was a big flaming pile of bigoted discrimination poo?

[PCL07]

Have you folks thought about intent? Study the law and the different elements that are required, and you will understand why hate crimes legislation exists.

We can use the two white kids who were let off last week and now the case is being picked up by the feds as an example of jurisdictional hi jinx. Play with that one and this hate crimes legislation.

I'm tired or angry white men continuing to cause problems because they don't want to change.

[ratrace]

What about freedom of speech? If I make a comment about how evil a religion is based on the dogma of that religion, will I be prosecuted? If I make a comment on how a religion tries to make this country a religious nation, will I be prosecuted? If I make a comment on how a "religion" is just a scheme to take money from misguided fools, will I be prosecuted? If I make a comment about being mugged by 6 white young people just because I am in their neighborhood, will I be prosecuted?

Give me free speech, and time and place for rebuttal, any day.

[Bruupo]

Is making a comment generally a crime? Do you even believe what you typed there?

These protections are about things that are already criminal acts.

Speech is free as long as it does not seek to incite panic, riot, revolution, or the harassment of an individual or individuals without justification (all questions of intent in an otherwise legal activity). That's been the law forever.

Slander and libel aren't criminal, but they aren't necessarily free, they can cost you.

[MJinCanada]

If you point out that a televangelist/faith healer is a fraud or that you are shocked by the blasphemy of certain preachers, you are free to do so, especially when you have truth on your side. You can also say that followers of a certain faith are foolish or ignorant -- if that is your honest opinion.

If, however, you start going around saying that all followers of a certain religion are evil, malicious beings causing great harm to good people and that "good people" should defend themselves before they are doomed, well, that's hate speech. Especially if you are saying this because you and your peers have an unreasonable fear of that religion or if you have an ulterior motive, such as scapegoating a group to build or maintain political power. And if you set out with some friends to drive those people from your town by setting fire to their houses one night, not caring if lives are lost, that is a hate crime.

[MoeB]

Goodness. Try to keep up here:

It is not a CRIME to speak ill of people or religion or whatever. It is in great distaste, however, it is NOT a crime. Hate crime legislation has NOTHING to do with speech and EVERYTHING to do with criminal intent. Saying, for instance, "I hate gays" is not a crime. KILLING a gay person because you "hate gays" IS a crime. See the difference?

[nowarrantforbeing]

An individuals motivation for committing a crime isn't what should be prosecuted, but the crime itself. Hate crime legislation practices convicting people for their thoughts, when the focus should be on the crime.

[Bruupo]

Tell that to the authors of The Patriot Act.

The only thing that separates terrorism from other forms of mass murder is the intent beyond intending to commit the criminal act:

"The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States."

If someone effects the death of multitudes through depraved indifference, that's one kind of crime, which lacks any intent. If a psychopath commits mass murder for the lulz, but isn't legally insane, that's just mass murder, a crime committed with intent. If someone commits the same act as the psychopath, but can be proven to have done so with an intent to terrorize people who were not victims of the initial crime- then is it terrorism.

[vagabondvet]

So you're defending the hate crimes bill by associating it with the Patriot Act?

[MoeB]

Good lord. Look, MOTIVATION and INTENT are as important to crimes as the crimes themselves.

Again, your post reads as if all crimes should be treated the same. Yet, not all crimes are equal. If we looked at JUST the crime, a drunk driver who drives his/her car into another causing the death of a person gets the same punishment as a person who kills a store clerk during a robbery (since the end result is the same), right? If someone breaks into my home, and I shoot them, I get the same punishment as someone who maliciously stabs say, a homeless person to death...ac­cording to your take. Self defense wouldn't be an option, as we are only looking at the CRIME (killing) and not the motivation or intent (self-defense).

The fact of the matter is, your thoughts don't come into play at all if you aren't committing a CRIME.
Your whole 'they'll prosecute me for my thoughts!' angle is nonsensical.

[nowarrantforbeing]

I see your point. However, I didn't say all crimes should be treated the same, I said all criminals should be treated the same regardless of their motivation for picking their victim. Vehicular manslaughter and first degree murder are different crimes, they should have different punishments, obviously. I agree with you. What I said is that, pardon all the hypothetical examples, if some white-supremacist assaults an african-american, a person of jewish/muslim ect. faith, or a gay/lesbia­n/transgen­der person he should be charged no differently than if he assaulted, in the same manner and to the same degree, one of his ignorant cowardly friends. Again, I see your point, I guess it's just two different schools of thought.

My one caveat being if the victim is a minor, or disabled.

[twosexy4mycat]

THE CRIME IS AMPLIFIED AND IS MORE AGREGIOUS WHEN THERE IS INTENT. THAT CRIME DEMANDS MORE PUNISHMENT