White House threatens to veto hate-crimes bill

[MLA]

Why am I not surprised?

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/hate.crimes.bill/index.html):

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.

[Niobe]

Yeah, Bush has really found that veto stamp, hasn't he.

I'm not surprised one bit. Bush has shown over and over again how bigoted he is against gays. Why should this time be any different?

[msnicolea]

I love how how they play both sides of the fence re: when local/state laws are "sufficient" and when they aren't.

He makes me sick.

[artist]

What an asshole!

I have noticed that usually the most homophobic people end up eventually coming out of the closet themselves. Not that Bush is necessarily in the closet. Anyway, it's bad enough to deny people in a loving relationship the right to marry, but it's un-Christian to allow hate crimes to happen and do nothing about it. The next time I hear Bush on television trying to quote the Bible and talk about Jesus, I think I will have to throw tomatoes at the t.v. or scream.

[artist]

Oh, and after re-reading the original post in this thread, EXCUSE ME??????

So, as a woman, if some asshole chauvistic pighead commits a hate crime against me, BECAUSE I am a woman, I cannot DO a damned thing about it?????

Wow! If I were Laura, I'd want to leave that shithead. I feel sorry for her having to be married to such a stupid shithead of a guy. I heard rumor that the asshole doesn't even give her Valentine's cards, but when/if he does, it's signed by some White House administrative assistant or something. I've also heard rumor they don't even live together anymore. (Note: What I just wrote COULD just be tabloid crap, so please don't think I necessarily believe those points to be true, but it also wouldn't entirely surprise me.)

How many more days until 2008? For the 2008 elections, I will DEFINITELY be at a BIG election night party. I'd say I'd host it, but I probably know someone who will be hosting a MUCH bigger party. Then I will head on over to the big huge rally celebration. Apparently Republican male politicians have shit for brains and hate women in addition to hating gays.

[bookworm]

So, as a woman, if some asshole chauvistic pighead commits a hate crime against me, BECAUSE I am a woman, I cannot DO a damned thing about it?????


Well, the person who committed the crime could still be charged with/punished for whatever crime s/he committed.

There was a really good West Wing episode about this...should the "reason" for the crime justify a different statute? If you kill someone b/c they are gay or kill them b/c you want their sneakers, is one really worse than the other? Why would one be a federal crime and one a state crime? (And Leo and CJ disagreed, I think...it wasn't a "smart people think this" episode :).)

I do agree that it's interesting to see where they are ok with the states owning the issue and where they want the feds involved.

[camberne]

The ADL website states that 19 of the 41 states that have "hate crime" statutes include gender-based hate crimes. I certainly think that is insufficient!! I wish that some people would step beyond the party line and see the big picture at hand. I don't understand how vetoing this bill would be viewed as anything but negative. *sigh*

FTR - I'm a Republican.

[artist]

The ADL website states that 19 of the 41 states that have "hate crime" statutes include gender-based hate crimes. I certainly think that is insufficient!! I wish that some people would step beyond the party line and see the big picture at hand. I don't understand how vetoing this bill would be viewed as anything but negative. *sigh*

FTR - I'm a Republican.

Glad to hear that even Republicans feel this way! Thank you for sharing that.

[artist]

Well, the person who committed the crime could still be charged with/punished for whatever crime s/he committed.

There was a really good West Wing episode about this...should the "reason" for the crime justify a different statute? If you kill someone b/c they are gay or kill them b/c you want their sneakers, is one really worse than the other? Why would one be a federal crime and one a state crime? (And Leo and CJ disagreed, I think...it wasn't a "smart people think this" episode :).)

I do agree that it's interesting to see where they are ok with the states owning the issue and where they want the feds involved.

Interesting. I wonder if this particular West Wing episode can be downloaded? (If so, I might want to watch it sometime.)

FWIW, although I can see the point that a murder is a murder is a murder (as in the above example of two different motives for murder), and it is a horrific tragedy either way, I actually DO think a hate crime SHOULD have additional punishments.

For example, an African American person could get murdered randomly in a drive-by shooting or something like that. And another African American could get tortured and killed by a KKK member. In both scenarios it is disgusting and horrific and tragic and in both stories a life would be lost. However, I would be MORE outraged by the latter scenario. I would want both murderers of course to be sentenced and put behind bars, but I would want the KKK member to be charged with and punished for additional crimes.

[Niobe]

I love how how they play both sides of the fence re: when local/state laws are "sufficient" and when they aren't.

He makes me sick.

Oh yes, what is the White House policy? If the states are in agreement, states' rights trump all, if the states are going against the White House, well than gosh darn it, we better pass an amendment to deal with that. Is that the current one? ;)

1 year, 8 months, 19 days and counting.

[ee_chick]

For example, an African American person could get murdered randomly in a drive-by shooting or something like that. And another African American could get tortured and killed by a KKK member. In both scenarios it is disgusting and horrific and tragic and in both stories a life would be lost. However, I would be MORE outraged by the latter scenario. I would want both murderers of course to be sentenced and put behind bars, but I would want the KKK member to be charged with and punished for additional crimes.

artist, the second offense is already as punishable as possible - the death penalty if the state has it, or life imprisonment if it doesn't. Laws already account for the varying levels that people kill each other. That kind of death is horrendous and should be punished to the extent possible whether the reason was race/gender/sexual preference or because the victim refused to give up his wallet/cut somebody off/yelled at him one too many times.

In that sense, I don't think that kind of legislation is necessary. The argument that may sway me is that it gives the federal government the ability to jump in and investigate/prosecute if the local government can't/won't do the job. I can understand that may be useful.

[jnettie]

Bush is an idiot.

To me, I think the importance of classifying something as a "Hate Crime" is the statement it makes. It says that we, as a society, will not tolerate discrimination. Remember, it wasn't that far in the past that hanging a black man for kissing a white woman was perfectly ok.

Today, there are many places in this country where the authorities would probably turn a blind eye to someone beating up a gay man. That's the importance of making this a Federal law: it gives homosexuals some protection that the states may not actually give.

[Sarah]

So, as a woman, if some asshole chauvistic pighead commits a hate crime against me, BECAUSE I am a woman, I cannot DO a damned thing about it?????
Well, you can still prosecute them for the crime, of course. It's still against the law to commit a crime.

I am as against discrimination as anyone, and I hate hatred of anyone, whether gay or Muslim or woman or black or anything else. But I don't think it's acceptable for the gov't to legislate people's feelings and hearts, and I don't think making this type of law actually changes anything. I think that people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the crime they commit- but I don't see why a white man killing a black man because he's racist is any different (legally speaking) than a white man killing another white man for sleeping with his wife.

I think there's much better ways as a society to work on racial reconciliation and other issues of discrimination. Having "hate crimes" be different than other crimes really bothers me.

Of course, I do think that if we are going to have this notion of hate crimes at all, that it should include crimes against homosexuals, transgender people, etc.

[BTB]

I'm an echo of Sarah...

I don't like that this veto is being used to single out crimes against others only for certain reasons. We should either have hate crimes enhancers, or not; they should not exist only for certain kinds of hate.

However, I'm against hate crimes enhancers in general. I don't think the government should worsen punishment based on someone's thoughts - in effect, punishing the thoughts themselves. Creepy precedent, IMO.

[camberne]

However, I'm against hate crimes enhancers in general. I don't think the government should worsen punishment based on someone's thoughts - in effect, punishing the thoughts themselves. Creepy precedent, IMO.I have to disagree with this statement because motivation is a huge determination in conviction of a crime and of why a crime was committed. If a crime was committed in the heat of the moment (aka: passion crime), the person is not as likely to reoffend as someone who has a vehement hatred of a generic group of people and specifically targeted someone for a crime because of that hatred. The thoughts (motivations) behind the latter is a MUCH bigger deal and needs to be dealt with more vigorously.

[bookworm]

I support motive being a factor in sentencing, but I'm just not convinced it makes it a different crime.

ETA: I guess in some cases there is a lesser charge that goes with no intent...but once there is intent, I just don't know that I can say one is worse than other across the board.

[BTB]

I have to disagree with this statement because motivation is a huge determination in conviction of a crime and of why a crime was committed.

I'm not a lawyer, and would never pretend to understand most aspects of the law. ;)

But I was under the impression that it was not "motivation" per se that mattered, but intent and predetermination. Thus if you kill someone with malice aforethought, that's murder. If you planned it ahead of time, that's murder one. But, if you drive drunk and hit someone who dies, that's vehicular "manslaughter" rather than murder.

It may be splitting hairs to some, but to me it makes sense that this is importantly different from your personally held feelings about people. I mean, I suppose one could argue that anyone guilty of murder one is guilty of a hate crime, no?

[camberne]

It may be splitting hairs to some, but to me it makes sense that this is importantly different from your personally held feelings about people. I mean, I suppose one could argue that anyone guilty of murder one is guilty of a hate crime, no?I'm not a lawyer either; however, even in the situation you post about, the feelings of hatred agains a particular person or couple people still is vastly different than a generic hatred of (just to use an example) an ethnic group which causes you to commit crimes against any and all persons of that group for no reason other than they are of that ethnicity. In the instance you cite, Person 1 kills Person 2 and Person 3 because they hate them for whatever reason. That's the end of that - there's no reason to believe that the reasons Person 1 killed Persons 2 & 3 would be conveyed to another victim. However, with someone who hates indiscriminately and kills just to get rid of a particular (to use the same example) ethnic group - this is a huge difference. This person still has unfinished business.

[artist]

Bush is an idiot.

To me, I think the importance of classifying something as a "Hate Crime" is the statement it makes. It says that we, as a society, will not tolerate discrimination. Remember, it wasn't that far in the past that hanging a black man for kissing a white woman was perfectly ok.

Today, there are many places in this country where the authorities would probably turn a blind eye to someone beating up a gay man. That's the importance of making this a Federal law: it gives homosexuals some protection that the states may not actually give.

These are some of the reasons I feel the way I do about this issue.

[artist]

Well, you can still prosecute them for the crime, of course. It's still against the law to commit a crime.

I am as against discrimination as anyone, and I hate hatred of anyone, whether gay or Muslim or woman or black or anything else. But I don't think it's acceptable for the gov't to legislate people's feelings and hearts, and I don't think making this type of law actually changes anything. I think that people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the crime they commit- but I don't see why a white man killing a black man because he's racist is any different (legally speaking) than a white man killing another white man for sleeping with his wife.

I think there's much better ways as a society to work on racial reconciliation and other issues of discrimination. Having "hate crimes" be different than other crimes really bothers me.

Of course, I do think that if we are going to have this notion of hate crimes at all, that it should include crimes against homosexuals, transgender people, etc.

Well, the gov't already DOES legislate based on people's feelings and hearts. Gays are not allowed to get married.

Also, I don't think a bigot even HAS a heart.

I will have to disagree with you on the point that actually I think there IS a big difference between a white man killing a black man only because he is black versus a man killing another man because he is really pissed off that another man slept with his wife or killed his brother, etc. One is crime of passion commited in the heat of the moment and the other is a crime comitted by a bigot/racist.

FWIW though, regarding punishing someone to the fullest extent possible, I am very opposed to the death penalty.

[Sarah]

Well, the gov't already DOES legislate based on people's feelings and hearts. Gays are not allowed to get married.

Also, I don't think a bigot even HAS a heart.

I will have to disagree with you on the point that actually I think there IS a big difference between a white man killing a black man only because he is black versus a man killing another man because he is really pissed off that another man slept with his wife or killed his brother, etc. One is crime of passion commited in the heat of the moment and the other is a crime comitted by a bigot/racist.

FWIW though, regarding punishing someone to the fullest extent possible, I am very opposed to the death penalty.
1. What? What is the relevance of that- what does gay marriage have to do with anything? I don't personally think the govt should ban gay marriage at all, it's fine with me. What I meant, and what BTB said more clearly than I did, is that it sets an upsetting precedent for the govt to legislate opinions like this, it disturbs me and seems awfully close to censorship.
Look, I hate bigotry, but I think it's pretty small minded and overly simplistic to say bigots have no heart. Do you really believe that? I think one of the reasons bigotry persists is because we consider ourselves so above so called bigots and see them as subhuman or "other." Most bigotry stems from ignorance or poverty or lack of education, or bad parenting, etc.

I don't even see how having hate crimes legislation would change anything- do you think the type of person who kills someone based on race or gender or creed would care about legislation like this?

2. I agree with BTB, Camberne- the law is concerned with whether a crime is premeditated or not, and should not be concerned with the reasons. A crime of passion is a crime of passion, whether its caused by racial hatred or jealousy or whatever.

3. Again, I am completely against racism or any kind of discrimination, but I don't agree that our government should try to force people to have an anti racist viewpoint. Policies, yes- like anti discrimination laws about jobs or pay- but not people's desires or reasons for doing things.

[artist]

Most bigotry stems from ignorance or poverty or lack of education, or bad parenting, etc.


I guess we will have to disagree on this point in particular. Specifically, I disagree that bigotry stems from poverty. If anything, I would say many who are in poverty are oppressed by bigots. I have met bigots who are well off financially and people in poverty who are all about equality and human rights.

[alisong]

I'm a little conflicted on the necessity of hate crime legislation.

I guess the main reason I'm mildly "for" it is that hate crimes are different from other crimes in that the intent is not just to harm the one victim, but to make other "similar" people (in race/religion/gender/sexual orientation) fear they too will become a victim of crime. Does that make any sense? It's analagous to the intent of a terrorist not just being to harm the specific victims of a terror act, but to make everyone else fearful of similar acts.

To use that horrific Jasper, TX case as an example - if it had been a white man dragged to his death by other white men, I don't think the crime would have affected white men the same way it probably affected black men.

And I do think a crime committed, at least in part, to terrify a segment of the population deserves harsher punishment.

[Niobe]

Bush is an idiot.

To me, I think the importance of classifying something as a "Hate Crime" is the statement it makes. It says that we, as a society, will not tolerate discrimination. Remember, it wasn't that far in the past that hanging a black man for kissing a white woman was perfectly ok.

Today, there are many places in this country where the authorities would probably turn a blind eye to someone beating up a gay man. That's the importance of making this a Federal law: it gives homosexuals some protection that the states may not actually give.

Exactly. Whether or not we _should_ have hate crime legislation, we have it. And by Bush's refusal to give gays protection under that legislation, he's saying (from my point of view) that it is OKAY to hate gays, discriminate against gays, even commit crimes against them. Even if he is a bigot, his job is to serve the American people equally, which he is clearly not capable of doing, due to his inability to separate his personal feelings from his professional duties. :mad:

I really, truly hope that my grandchildren will look back at this period of American history with the same feelings of disbelief and disgust that I look at the pre-Civil Rights era of my grandparents' time.

[Sarah]

I guess we will have to disagree on this point in particular. Specifically, I disagree that bigotry stems from poverty. If anything, I would say many who are in poverty are oppressed by bigots. I have met bigots who are well off financially and people in poverty who are all about equality and human rights.
Please note my use of the word "OR." I think poverty can be one factor in it, as can other things. As a person who is certifiably "poor," I can confidently say that poverty plays a role in ignorance and in bigotry- SOME of the time. Yes, many impoverished people are victims of discrimination and oppression. And sometimes people who are themselves victims of oppression are also the instigators and perpetrators of more of the same.

Again, you cannot make generalizations on "people you have met." Of course many bigots are in power or are wealthy. Many, I am sure. But they aren't usually the people who tie people to the backs of trucks or beat them to death. Bigots in power tend to do things much more covertly in order to harm minorities. Not that that's okay in any way- it just doesn't really factor into the hate crime discussion.

Another huge issue here is that these types of laws seem incredibly hard to prove, to me. I know there are cut and dried instances where there is a gay bashing incident and a person is killed, like MS. But I have a feeling that in most instances bigotry is only one factor in a death. How big of a factor it is sounds incredibly difficult to prove.

And I know this legislation is extended to "protected classes" right? But I am uncomfortable with the government telling us who is is sanctioned for us to hate and who not. Clearly, none of us should hate anyone, but I am so uncomfortable with the govt legislating hatred or love, etc.

[Sarah]

Just to elaborate- say a minority person and a white guy get into a fight over a girl. They get into a physical fight, they exchange words, one calls the other a racial slur, and the minority guy ends up dead. Is this a hate crime? Probably not. But this has a lot of shades of gray. I get the impression that most "hate crimes" aren't situations of trying to harm someone to send a message to a larger community, but they are stupid people getting into fights and hurting someone. KWIM?

[msnicolea]

I get the impression that most "hate crimes" aren't situations of trying to harm someone to send a message to a larger community, but they are stupid people getting into fights and hurting someone. KWIM?

No, I don't "kwym." What you are describing here isn' a hate crime. Hate crimes are very specifically defined--not arbitrarily labeled/prosecuted just because different races are involved.

[Txfish]

I'm going to assume there, that Sarah meant the stupid person hurting someone being motivated by "hate crime" definitions -- hurting ONE person, as opposed to doing it with intent to harm or frighten a larger group.

But either way, that's the whole point -- it's all grey areas, unless the perpetrator says "I killed him because he was gay/black/poor/insert "unacceptable life form" here." Crimes can LOOK all kinds of ways, and I'd like to just have a harshest form of punishment possible for the crime, regardless of who did it and to whom it was done. Otherwise you end up with some people being unable to prove that they DIDN'T do it based on "hate", and some people getting away with "hate" becasue they made it look random.

Yeah, I'd rather see more effort put into making sure that our law enforcers are doing their jobs properly, so we don't have to make laws to cover for them deciding to "turn a blind eye" when they agree with the crime. But in that case, how would anyone use a federal law to get relief if the local police refused to acknowledge the crime in the first place?

[Sarah]

I'm going to assume there, that Sarah meant the stupid person hurting someone being motivated by "hate crime" definitions -- hurting ONE person, as opposed to doing it with intent to harm or frighten a larger group.

But either way, that's the whole point -- it's all grey areas, unless the perpetrator says "I killed him because he was gay/black/poor/insert "unacceptable life form" here." Crimes can LOOK all kinds of ways, and I'd like to just have a harshest form of punishment possible for the crime, regardless of who did it and to whom it was done. Otherwise you end up with some people being unable to prove that they DIDN'T do it based on "hate", and some people getting away with "hate" becasue they made it look random.

Yeah, I'd rather see more effort put into making sure that our law enforcers are doing their jobs properly, so we don't have to make laws to cover for them deciding to "turn a blind eye" when they agree with the crime. But in that case, how would anyone use a federal law to get relief if the local police refused to acknowledge the crime in the first place?

Yes. ITA. There is no excuse for law enforcement turning a blind eye to any crime, regardless of who committed or why. That's what we should focus on, IMO.
No, I don't "kwym." What you are describing here isn' a hate crime. Hate crimes are very specifically defined--not arbitrarily labeled/prosecuted just because different races are involved.

Excuse me, Msnicole. I was not clear enough there. I meant that although I understand the law may be clear, it's a complicated idea, what a "hate crime" is. Proving that a person was motivated by racial or ______ hatred is difficult, and I think that most murders or crimes have multiple causation.

[jnettie]

Actually, I think it's rather clear when a crime is racially motivated. Usually those who hurt or kill people based on race/sexual orientation/religion are very vocal about their beliefs. They kill or hurt someone as an example to others, to keep people they deem below them in their place, so to speak.

It's completely different than someone who murders his girlfriend for cheating on him, or a serial killer who quietly kills one person at a time.

[msnicolea]

Exactly, jnettie.

[artist]

Please note my use of the word "OR." I think poverty can be one factor in it, as can other things. As a person who is certifiably "poor," I can confidently say that poverty plays a role in ignorance and in bigotry- SOME of the time. Yes, many impoverished people are victims of discrimination and oppression. And sometimes people who are themselves victims of oppression are also the instigators and perpetrators of more of the same.

At the moment, I am in poverty. I have worked with and advocated for people who are in poverty. Many people who are in poverty are opressed; often based on race or gender.


Again, you cannot make generalizations on "people you have met." Of course many bigots are in power or are wealthy. Many, I am sure. But they aren't usually the people who tie people to the backs of trucks or beat them to death. Bigots in power tend to do things much more covertly in order to harm minorities. Not that that's okay in any way- it just doesn't really factor into the hate crime discussion.

Then don't make generalizations about people in poverty. And if you say it's unfair that I use anecdotal stories, then please at least back up what you have to say with factual information. What proof do you have that most violent bigotted criminals are poor?

As for whether or not it is difficult to prove that a crime is a hate crime, I think it's actually pretty simple to prove.

[Sarah]

What proof do you have that most violent bigotted criminals are poor?

I don't think those were my exact words, but I do think that's probably true. Overwhelmingly, more violent crimes are commited by the poor. That's not an attack on them- I don't think it's because they are bad people or different from the middle class. It's a fact, though. And I think that when bigots exist in the upper classes (which I am sure is common) they tend to have more to lose and instead of beating someone or killing them, they might not give them a job or might make asshole jokes at a party or might do other things which are not violent. There is just less of a culture of violence in middle class circles.

As to your poverty, that's none of my business.

Yes, of course many of them are oppressed. Especially by the school system, which is another story. But as a person who right now lives in one of the most dangerous places in this country, in a very poor part of the inner city, I can say that there is a culture of violence in poverty which is staggering. Again, I am not blaming the poor for this, but it is true.
"Gun violence is becoming so common in some parts of the city that many people are no longer shocked by it, said Dr. Bill Schwab, chief of trauma and surgical critical care at the hospital.
“Are people becoming numb to violence? The answer is yes,” Dr. Schwab said. “It’s very common for them to be sitting on their porch and to hear gunshots in the night.”

What sets Philadelphia apart from other cities, say the police, politicians and academic experts, is the combination of high poverty — with 25 percent of the population living below the poverty line, the city has the highest rate among the 10 biggest cities, according to census data — a youth culture that increasingly settles minor disputes through violence and the easy availability of guns."
from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/15philadelphia.html?en=bdfcde5deaa63a37&ex=1334289600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&ei=5124&pagewanted=all
As for whether or not it is difficult to prove that a crime is a hate crime, I think it's actually pretty simple to prove.

It may be easy to prove according to the legal standpoint. What I meant is that often crimes have a complicated or confusing motivation inside people's heads. I realize of course that a person of one race killing one of another does not constitute a hate crime.

For example (and I have NO CLUE whether this is true, I don't think any of us do) the men who killed Matthew Shepard claim (as does the prosecutor) that it was not a hate crime, that their motives were drugs and money. Now we do not know the extent to which his being gay played into his murder. Perhaps it was 100%, perhaps it was not at all, or most likely (IMO), it was part of it. I think it's difficult to call exactly what a person's motivation was, as I think most situations are complicated and not just "The member of the KKK lynched a AA man."

Am I making any sense?

Oh, here's an article about Mr. Shepard:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=2

[msnicolea]

It's not a generalization to suggest that most violent criminals come from underprivileged backgrounds--that's just a fact.

[Sarah]

It's not a generalization to suggest that most violent criminals come from underprivileged backgrounds--that's just a fact.
Yes, thank you. But again, just to make sure- I never said anything blaming anyone for that fact.

[artist]

Regardless, what does that have to do with whether or not it's okay to legislate hate crimes; or moreover, legislate only SOME hate crimes?

[msnicolea]

No, I understand. It's difficult/sensitive to talk about the relationship between poverty and crime--but the facts are what they are.

[Sarah]

Regardless, what does that have to do with whether or not it's okay to legislate hate crimes; or moreover, legislate only SOME hate crimes?

I forget how we got there. :) I'll look back. I had about 5 hours sleep last night.

I said in my first post that I completely agree that if we are going to have hate crimes legislation, which I guess we do, gay people should totally be covered. But I just disagree with the entire notion.

[msnicolea]

People for the American Way sums it up nicely, I think:

Hate crimes laws do create a category of violent crime that is motivated by a desire to harm or intimidate a person intentionally selected because of his or her membership in a certain class of people. There is a clear public good to justify policy that punishes and prevents crimes designed to sow fear and division by singling out individuals based on characteristics like race or sexual orientation. When a gay or lesbian person is attacked or harassed because of his or her sexual orientation, the threat of continued violence is felt by all those who could be singled out in the future. Just as terrorist attacks are designed to cause fear as much as destruction, anti-gay hate crimes are designed to send the message that gays and lesbians should feel constantly endangered because of their sexual orientation.

[Sarah]

But do you honestly think that people who kill gay people are thinking that intelligently and cogently? I think they are just stupid people, inflamed by anger and hate and whatever else, who want to hurt someone who is threatening or scary to them or whatever. I don't think it's intelligently designed to strike fear in others, but maybe you're right.

[artist]

I forget how we got there. :) I'll look back. I had about 5 hours sleep last night.

I said in my first post that I completely agree that if we are going to have hate crimes legislation, which I guess we do, gay people should totally be covered. But I just disagree with the entire notion.

Hey, FWIW, I am an insomniac myself, so I probably had about the same amount of sleep as you did!

[artist]

But do you honestly think that people who kill gay people are thinking that intelligently and cogently? I think they are just stupid people, inflamed by anger and hate and whatever else, who want to hurt someone who is threatening or scary to them or whatever. I don't think it's intelligently designed to strike fear in others, but maybe you're right.

I don't think punishments for crimes really ever deter people from committing crimes. To me, that is not the point of the punishment. Rather, I feel that when people commit certain crimes, they need to be held accountable for their actions and crimes. It's about justice.

[jnettie]

But do you honestly think that people who kill gay people are thinking that intelligently and cogently? I think they are just stupid people, inflamed by anger and hate and whatever else, who want to hurt someone who is threatening or scary to them or whatever. I don't think it's intelligently designed to strike fear in others, but maybe you're right.

Yes. Not all hate crimes are perpetrated by your stereotypical redneck with a gun rack on his truck and a deer on the hood. Look at history, heck, look at world news.

[MLA]

I have a certain amount of ambivalence about hate crime legislation. Having read a lot of posters opinions about it in other threads, I think I've come to better understand why the classification needs to exist.

I think we're getting bogged down in the "should hate crime laws exist" question. The point, though, isn't about whether or not you think federal hate crime laws should exist. They already do. The point is that Bush has indicated that he'll veto any attempt to extend those laws to gays, women, and disabled people. I think that's wrong. I think that's discriminatory. And it makes me mad.

[Delta]

I think rather than pulling out the excuse about state and local laws, they should have just said the president disagrees with special hate crime penalties, period. I remember a big brouhaha about Bush and hate crime legislation back in the 2000 election.

[ysolde]

But do you honestly think that people who kill gay people are thinking that intelligently and cogently? I think they are just stupid people, inflamed by anger and hate and whatever else, who want to hurt someone who is threatening or scary to them or whatever. I don't think it's intelligently designed to strike fear in others, but maybe you're right.

Actually, I do think that people who commit hate crimes are trying to frighten the community as a whole. That's why the burn crosses on people's lawns, to let the entire AA community in the neighborhood know that they have something to be afraid of. That's why they desecrate synagogues, to let the entire Jewish community know that they are not safe in that neighborhood. That's why they hang out outside a gay club and beat a gay man almost to death in his own, gay neighborhood. To let the gay community know that they are not safe in their own clubs, or walking home in their own neighborhoods.

Hate crimes are specifically and particularly designed to strike fear, not only in the particular victim, but in the community as a whole.

[msnicolea]

ITA, ysolde. You hit the nail on the head!