Posted on 09/12/2008 2:13:02 AM PDT by Man50D
A federal "hate crimes" plan to criminalize speech or thoughts critical of homosexuality – dropped from Congress' agenda earlier because of a veto threat from President Bush – may be resurrected before the election, according to an opponent of such advocacy laws.
"Here's ultimately what we expect," Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law, told WND today. "The hate crimes plan is to be offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Defense reauthorization bill. That's what the word is, that it's going to be offered as an amendment."
Pro-homosexual advocates long have sought such a law but opponents fear it would be used to crack down on those who maintain a biblical perspective that condemns homosexuality as sin. Observers note that it would criminalize speech and thought, since other criminal actions already are addressed with current statutes.
Canada already has an aggressive "hate crimes" law, and there authorities there have gone so far as to tell a Christian pastor he must recant his faith because of the legislation that bans statements that can be "perceived" as condemning another person.
Some states already have similar statutes, too, and in New Mexico, a photography company run by two Christians was fined $6,600 by the state for declining to provide services to a lesbian couple setting up a lookalike "marriage" ceremony. Also, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter recently signed a bill into law that opponents describe as draconian, with one analyst expressing the opinion that it actually could be read as outlawing publication of the Bible in the state because of its injunctions against homosexuality.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"The hate crimes plan is to be offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Defense reauthorization bill.
I should be used to this BS by now, but still steam when it happens. It can't stand on it's own, so it's tacked on the Defense bill. If successfully added as an amendment and the defense bill is passed - and it will be passed - the hate crimes become law.
Once again, I wonder about the constitutionality of a federal law - does this supposedly come under the much abused Interstate Commerce Clause?
Congress critter ping!
I will be the test case.
NO goobermint is going to stop me from speaking my conscience; not while I’m breathing.
“Once again, I wonder about the constitutionality of a federal law - does this supposedly come under the much abused Interstate Commerce Clause?”
Where have you been? The fed can do whatever it wants. Unless it does something that personally offends the Court.
By the way, hate crimes should be banned because they go after motive, which is not traditionally considered to be an element of crime. When people call them “thought crimes,” I cringe a little. After all, prosecutors have to crawl inside people’s minds to determine intent, which in turn determines what crime you’ll be charged with. Charging on the basis of motive, though, is not within the spirit of the law. It harkens back to class perogative. You know: kick a peasant, go about your business; soil a lord’s cape, be hung by the neck within the hour.
Please FReepmail to be added to the Congress Watch ping list.
BUMP!!!
DNC needs hollyweird money.
And they claim the authority to enact this because they “find” that hate crimes “have a substantial effect on interstate commerce”, no less.
BUMP
Typical liberal tactic. Stuff an obnoxious, unconstitutional item into a legitimate bill, hoping that people will be dumb enough to let it pass.
The radical homosexuals do a lot of "hate speech" themselves against Christians, or anyone who does not support their lifestyle. To me, it sounds like a lot of noisy, undisciplined children.
If I don't support their lifestyle, if I think it's sinful, immoral, perverse, I guess you can count me in as a criminal-hater.
It is clear the homosexuals do not want to allow any discussion of what is wrong with the perversion of homosexuality.
It will just take one person charged with this crime to get it removed.
It is a clear violation of the 1st amend.
Motive, intent and opportunity has long been accepted as necessary to prove guilt of a crime. My major objection is in making motive the sole basis for guilt.
As for the rest of it, I’d love to see (as would a lot of others) a Supreme Court that had actually read our Constitution and abided by it, but as long as the members have to be approved by Congress it will be composed of jurists who think as Congress does - and a Constitutional basis for a law won’t be necessary.
Since the 13th Amendment the phrase “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” has been added to Amendments as a standard line. Even this has been stretched to the breaking point and you’re right - the feds can do anything they want.
I wish our “esteemed” law makers would once again become our “representatives”.
“Motive, intent and opportunity has long been accepted as necessary to prove guilt of a crime”
This is simply qrong. Go talk to a prosecutor. For any particular murder, dozens of people could have motive and opportunity. Intent, of course, is an element of crime, so you were right about the middle part.
qrong = wrong
qrong = wrong
Check with any prosecutor? It must have changed since I graduated.
Motive, intent and opportunity don’t by themselves prove guilt, it narrows the field. If I am accused of murder, but had no motive, no intent and no opportunity it would be extremely unlikely that I’d be convicted in a fair trial.
Still I hope we agree that motive alone should not be a crime.
“Motive, intent and opportunity don’t by themselves prove guilt, it narrows the field.”
Not having attended law school, I admit that I am out of my niche. But I was always lead to believe that “motive, means, and opportunity” was a popular misconception, insofar as they alone cannot prove guilt (and are therefore not technically “elements of crime”). Cops use motive to guide their investigation, and lawyers argue over motive in the courtroom. But cops and lawyers probably talk about a lot of things that aren’t technically elements of crime, I’d assume (again, being a non-professional, that’s just a feeling of mine).
I checked an encyclopedia to find out how accurate my appraisal is, and this is what I found:
“Motive: An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.
Motive is usually used in connection with criminal law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way — for example, to support the prosecution’s assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.
Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant’s motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant’s motives were honorable — for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.
In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.
For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.
A HATE CRIME (emphasis mine) is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant’s belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim’s religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.
In civil law a plaintiff generally need not prove the respondent’s motive in acting or failing to act. One notable exception to this general rule is the tort of malicious prosecution. In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove, in part, that the respondent was motivated by malice in subjecting the plaintiff to a civil suit. The same applies for a malicious criminal prosecution.”
This entry seems to support my sense that hate crime is unique in criminal law for requiring evidence of motive.
It looks like we’re closer together on this than it previously looked. It’s all semantics.
If this is passed it will make motive alone a crime - “A federal “hate crimes” plan to criminalize speech or thoughts critical of homosexuality...” Criminalize thoughts? I can see justification for making “Kill the homos” a crime - but that is already illegal if it incites a riot, assault, murder or other crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.