Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  22 23 24 25 26 (26 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eyecon
Retired CEO & Quality-Mgmt Consultant
11:17 AM on 09/10/2010
This effort to pander to the religious right (using Tony Perkins' talking points) is profoundly dishonest. We have had federal hate crimes laws for decades. Funny how they ceased to make sense only when expanded to include sexual orientation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zach Stein
11:24 AM on 09/10/2010
He's not just pandering Toomey is a right wing radical... He ran against Santorum in the primaries a few years ago and attacked Santorum from the right... Anyone even farther right than Santorum is really far out there.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Claw2122
not everyone can be me
11:17 AM on 09/10/2010
Ugh do i get a chance to make sure this guy doesn't end up in the senate?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
considerthis
I try my best
11:23 AM on 09/10/2010
Only if you live in PA. I live outside of Philly so for years was under the misconception that we were a a moderate state, leaning toward liberal. Then I read PA described as Philly and Pittsburg with Kentucy in the middle (I may have the state wrong but you know what I mean). After traveling through the state I realized that is indeed a very accurate description.

So, I hope there are enough informed and intelligent people in Philly and the Burg to offset the rest and send Joe Sistack to congress.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zach Stein
11:23 AM on 09/10/2010
Sestak is running for senate...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Claw2122
not everyone can be me
12:21 PM on 09/10/2010
I actually do live in PA near the OH border but wasn't quite sure if the voting was state wide or just by district for this guy.
11:17 AM on 09/10/2010
Forget about freedom of thought...how bout not having laws that doesn't distinguished color, race, sex. Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Isn't this supposed to be an egalitarian society? Why should justice consider race, religion, sex, etc? Why should certain minorities, or majorities be afforded different treatment under laws that are supposed to be applied across the population?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eyecon
Retired CEO & Quality-Mgmt Consultant
11:25 AM on 09/10/2010
Behold the talking points. The answer is simple.

1. When you commit a violent crime because the victim is a member of a group then you commit a crime against the group which our society deems a more serious offense.

2. Hate crimes laws came into effect so that the FBI could step in when sheriff Bubba declined to do his job because he was a racist. That still applies.

3. Because of their senselessness, hate crimes are often more difficult to solve. These laws provide federal funds and assistance if requested by local law enforcement.

4. Hate crimes laws don't apply to "minorities." For example, a violent attack on a Christian because of his or her religion constitutes a hate crime. Furthermore, the victim is not "afforded different treatment" in any way whatsoever.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:57 AM on 09/10/2010
Excellent post. Thanks.
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
11:33 AM on 09/10/2010
He explained it perfectly.

[The reason why there is a difference created for hate crimes is because the offender is not attacking on the basis of the individual person or their individual actions, they are attacking because of what the individual is (something that cannot be changed). This represents a much more heinous crime since it projects violence against an entire group of people for no other reason than their color, race, orientation, etc... That kind of hatred against an entire group needs to different enforcement laws since it represents a greater threat to society as a whole. ] - Luke Goldstein  
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:15 AM on 09/10/2010
Then they should also eliminate the charge of "attempted murder" because it unfairly prosecutes a person based on what he/she was THINKING would be a murder, but failed. They should also get rid of "reckless driving", "aggravated assault" and every other crime that implies an understanding of the motivating forces behind the committing of a crime. In other words, hate crimes laws (which can be used by the MAJORITY against minorities, AS WELL AS the implied minority use against the majority). So, don't no one start spouting "it only helps minorities". It is for ANYONE who is harmed for reasons specified in the law. So, yes, if a white Christian male person is beaten by Chinese people BECAUSE he is white...then it's a hate crime. Plain and simple.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Budokan
Professional science fiction/fantasy writer
11:09 AM on 09/10/2010
RepubliKans are always looking to open the door to bring back lynchings.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
murphyj87
11:07 AM on 09/10/2010
Pat Toomey thinks he can win votes by promoting hate? Pat Toomey is a typical Republican fearmonger and hatemonger and deserves to be defeated for his unAmerican hate and fear filled views.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AHMatron
11:06 AM on 09/10/2010
"what was so and so thinking at the time he committed his crime and let's punish him more or less depending of what we think the thought process was. That's ridiculous."

We already do this. Look at the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. This is obvious to me and I'm not even a lawyer, I just watch 'em on TV
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
T C Mits
11:33 AM on 09/10/2010
Or what about a person charged with possession of 10 kilos of cocaine with the intent to distribute? Would we then be forced to assume it was for personal use?