A hateful hate-crimes law

WND ^ | October 31, 2009 | Star Parker

[bogusname]

President Obama has signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate-crimes legislation.

Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the hate-crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our senators consider the controversial hate-crimes legislation on its own.

It's for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far-left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate-crimes law does.

The bill adds on extra penalties to violent crimes when it is deemed they were motivated by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major expansion of hate-crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin...

[muawiyah]

In the good old days a Title of Nobility usually got your criminal case transferred from the ordinary courts designed to keep the commoners in line. Instead, you would be tried before a jury of your peers. Finally, you'd usually receive a lighter sentence should you be found guilty.

The concept behind this was that nobles were somehow purer and more important than other people.

Oh, yes, and if some commoner committed a crime against a noble? Well, the court would always judge against the commoner and he'd find his neck broken on a noose ~ nobles were executed with a sword which was faster and much more sanitary ~ plus you'd look great at your funeral!

The effect of the so-called "hate crimes" legislation is to elevate homosexuals, deviants, perverts and people who should know better to a position well above that of most of us.

The ONLY ESCAPE is to make sure we don't utter a word when we commit crimes against them, but that hedge is based on the idea we might get caught, but of course, we never intend to get caught.

Someday we need to rise up against the noble classes and destroy them utterly!

[Secret Agent Man]

First plank of Conservative Republican Platform:

Repeal ALL Hate Crimes laws at the federal level. All crimes are hate crimes, let’s be real. Judge actions not ideology. Besides it’s only one way anyway. We have far, far more black on white crime that is racially motivated (we picked him/her because they’re white and almost never have a gun, etc) and they NEVER prosecute under hate crimes multipliers. Hell if you’re hispanic in one category they count hispanics as whites and totally skew the crime stats.

[bogusname]

You are soooo right!

[bogusname]

I agree with everything you said. We need to rise up right now.

[The_Pickle]

My major issue with so called "hate crime" legislation is that the motivation for a crime has traditionally been considered either a mitigating or aggravating factor in sentencing after said factors have been considered by a jury.

For example a person found guilty of shoplifting may have their sentence mitigated by a jury if they have the ability to consider that said act was to feed a starving child or they may choose to aggravate the sentence if they find out that the act was perpetrated to facilitate the person "crack" habit.

The issue that I have is that the current hate crimes laws tacks this aggravating factor directly onto the charge and removes the jury consideration entirely.

Now a jury, not wishing to aquit someone of a crime they so obviously committed, has no choice but to accept the added aggravating factor as said factor is included within the letter of the charge and not properly considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[Secret Agent Man]

That to me is certainly a factor , but the bigger factor is that if a criminal murders someone who’s in a ‘protected class’ it is worse and the criminal deserves EXTRA punishment than if he murdered someone NOT in a protected class.

I am sorry but nobody will EVER convince me that is equal under the law. Because it clearly IS NOT.

If a jury wants to take certain factors into play on its own, well, that’s what juries do. But they do it for particular specific cases, on a case-by-case basis.

Plus it does so without inherently assigning certain kinds of people ‘automatic increased value’ than others for being a certain skin tone, gender or what gender you like to have sex with.

[muawiyah]

So, under this law the prosecution takes the risk that a juror or 2 who shares the voiced antipathy toward the victim may decide to turn him loose.

Will they now be asking potential jurors what they think of homosexuals, sexual perverts of all kinds, cross-dressers, etc?

Could be quite interesting if they found a judge to go along with that idea ~ that'd pretty much reduce the juries to homosexual activists ~ and given their small percentage of the population, those bad boys would be on jury duty every day!