[Senator] Gordon Smith Creates Hate Crime

Oregon Magazine ^ | August 13, 2003 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

Oregon's marvelous federal senator, Mr. Smith, is working with Ted "Chappy" Kennedy of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Massachusetts to enlarge the scope of "hate crime laws."

It is traditional in law that the reason a killing happens has a bearing on the punishment, if any, associated with the event.

The basic difference is intent, though if the intent is part of a situation involving a typical self defense, the killing is usually legal. Where the death is not a matter of self defense, long-established rules hold sway.

If you kill somebody without intending to do so, and not as a result of your negligent carelessness, that is one thing.

If the event comes about as a result of your negligent carelessness, even though you did not intend to kill anbody, that is another thing.

If you do it while engaged in felonious activity, like a robbery, that is a third thing.

And, if the killing is the result of intent on your part, that is a fourth thing which is called murder.

But hate crime laws add a fifth thing: affirmative action punishment....(snip)

[Old Sarge]

(mhking ping)

Has anyone got data on where this legislation is, ie. committee, debate, etc.?

[Erik Latranyi]

"Has anyone got data on where this legislation is, ie. committee, debate, etc.? "


DOA

[mhking]

I know that a question like this is verbotten by the PC police, but isn't any form of pre-meditated murder a hate crime?

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[mhking]

Has anyone got data on where this legislation is, ie. committee, debate, etc.?

Got no wind on this one - I'll dig a bit but I'm not hopeful...

[cincysux]

Exactly, as a kid when someone beat the crap out of me, the fact they hated my guts was a given. I guess since Manson and his freaks killed white people like themselves, hate wasn't a factor in sticking forks in people.

[vpintheak]

These gongressional morons are only doing their duty--for the progressive movements to which they belong. They exist only to grow government by any means neccessary, including making idiotic laws that mean nothing, and do no real good.

[dwd1]

I guess the feeling is that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not sufficient...

Not to do with affirmative action but perhaps more to do with groups that have had a disproportionate amount of violence perpetrated based primarily on the fact they belong to a group...(Gays, immigrants, certain religious and ethnic minorities)...

I guess the position Senator Smith is taking is that hating someone simply because they are of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation, etc has a level of malevolence. The purpose of this legislation is to legislate tolerance. These are the types of protections that a Christian in a Muslim Nation, a white person in an African Nation, a Catholic in a Protestant Country (luck of the Irish), and gays just about every except certain European Nations do not enjoy.

The hate crimes law have good intent... However, (there is always a however) prosecutors and law enforcement spend a lot of time worried about hate crimes when the conventional wisdom is that they should spend time fighting crime and treat it all the same.

It may be another way that this country is trying to atone for historical wrongs...

The real question to me is "Does this legislation deter criminals from doing violence because of the awareness that there are harsher penalties if a hate based motivation can be proven..."

I think about the following statement someone said...

When they came for the Jews, I did not stand up because I am not Jewish.

When the came for the Catholics, I did not stand up because I am not Catholic.
etc....

When they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me...

I don't give in to the victim's mentality but the question is "Can we assess an additional penalty for what someone thinks?"

If you are a hispanic walking with a caucasian, if you are a white truck driverin South Central Los Angeles during a riot (Reginald Denny), that may be the only comfort and protection you have when you are the minority in a hostile environment...

Good intent but it can get so messed up when implemented...

[dwd1]

By the way, as far I know, pre-meditated murder is usually Murder 1 and a punishable by death...Murder 2 is usually not intentional (heat of the moment, etc)

You might want to check with J.D.'s about manslaughter and felony murder...

By the way, I have been told pre-meditated murder can include doing a murder for hire...It is not a hate crime...It is nothing personnel...As Tom Hagen said in the Godfather, "It's just business."

[WaterDragon]

Thanks for pinging the man!

[First Amendment]

The hate crimes law have good intent...

I disagree. The intent is to give special groups special identity - so that killing or harming them is WORSE than killing or harming others. This is unconstitutional, creates more hate and enmity, and just plain stupid. So if someone killed or harmed my old father, it wouldn't be as evil a crime as someone killing a homosexual. Sick. And adding homosexuals to the hate crime business is the cherry on the sick cake. Why should someone who practices same sex sodomy have special protection, or whatever the hate crimes bill is supposed to do? This is just a lawyer-fest, and the government creating a special classes of people heirarchy.

[WaterDragon]

I've heard liberal psychotherapists say that child rapists had the "intent" to show the child love!

Normal people consider the consequences of "good intentions" before implementing them. Liberals are content with "feeling good" about their "good intentions." It's all about THEM.

[dwd1]

I am not saying that there are not those whose intentions have nothing to do with doing the right thing... But please remember laws concerning domestic violence, statutory rape laws, the laws that are intended to protect the elderly from con men, SEC laws that are intended to protect investors, RICO Laws that protect the public from organized crime, drug laws that are harsh because of societies desire to discourage people from harming their bodies...Civil rights laws concerning privacy and the rights of the accused...

All of these laws have good intent but unpleasant side effects....

Please ask yourself what you would do if you were on the receiving end of the persecution endured by so many in this country for so many reasons...

A lot of these laws are a result of those members of our society that are scared... They are scared when police are not present...They are scared because they know that when authority figures and law enforcement are not present, there are those who do harm to those who are weaker simply because they can... As a society, we try to send a message to be vigilant in your behavior because one of the most important goals of society is to make all law abiding citizens feel safe and protected and we do accept persecution of the weak or those who may have a different way of thinking or living just because we can...

You have to remember that it was not so long ago that Matthew Shepard was killed, that Arabs who hate our way of life killed more than 3000 of us....That a man was dragged to death in a small Texas Town... That two young white kids were beaten and their girlfriends raped because they found themselves in the wrong neighborhood...

Until you walk a mile in the shoes of a person who has been persecuted because he is different, you may not be that understanding of the fact that he may need a little more protection than you...

[July 4th]

If you're gonna kill someone, just make sure you tell them that you love them first.

[First Amendment]

Until you walk a mile in the shoes of a person who has been persecuted because he is different, you may not be that understanding of the fact that he may need a little more protection than you

No, still don't agree. First of all, how do you know that I haven't been persecuted against or people haven't been cruel to me because of perceived differences? Second, NO ONE deserves MORE protection than others. And for you to trot out Shepard's name when so many innocent children have been molested, raped and tortured by homosexuals is rather shameless. So by your logic the young boy who was tortured and murdered by two homosexuals is not a "hate crime" victim, just a regular victim.

If the laws against assault, murder and other harm are enforced properly, everyone is protected equally. And to make unconstitutional laws to make up for PAST harm is not only patently stupid, it creates another generation of injustice.

[dwd1]

Normal is definitely a term that has different meaning depending on one's history, financial status, residence, and pugilistic capability...

As a moderate, I think the problem with liberals is not only thinking things through...The problem is one of not properly estimating the consequences...

Most men over six foot and 200 pounds don't see the reason for domestic violence laws...Doesn't mean the laws are not needed...

BTW, most pedophiles would not be classified as pedophiles if we did not have laws that are designed and intended to protect children from consenting to participation in sex acts with adults...

[dwd1]

I do not know you and therefore I concede that you may have been persecuted for differences...It is never my intent to make anyone's pain appear insignificant...

By the way, as a person with children, I can assure you that the child labor laws which were designed to stop the terrible conditions children were forced to live in during the time that Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle", the laws which protect children from abuse from their parents, the laws which give child actors better financial protection, the laws that make statutory rape a crime, Megan's law which requires notification to a community of those who have committed sex crimes against children, the Amber Alerts which place the safe return of children that are in danger of being sexually abused....I thank God for all of these laws... I have called the police to go to my children's home in TX because my daughter was talking to me on the phone and it went dead...I could not get her back on the line...I called the police and they were more than happy to go and perform a "Welfare Check"...

I am not sure what you mean when you say "past wrongs"... I thought we have laws that allow us to bring to court any perceived injustices and allow a jury to decide if there is a need for corrective action... We do have a tradition in this country of taking responsibility when we have made a mistake and trying to make things right... We don't have to overdo it but I do think that is how we have done things as a society...

Regarding the homosexuals who have mistreated or abused children, I would never even try to defend such behavior and I think there are sex offender laws that deal with these individuals very well... However, if children are not adequately protected, I would be the first to suggest that laws need to be passed to provide the necessary protection...

[dwd1]

I guess that one's perception of a need to correct past wrongs depends on which end of the injustice you were on...

One thing that you do bring up that is interesting...Is it a hate crime when two athletic or well armed homosexuals commit an offense (murder, rape, etc) and the primary reason behind the attack is because they just want to pay back someone who is part of group that they feel has persecuted them...

I would say that there is an added level of malevelonce if a gay person would get together with several of his friends and beat the crap out of a young heterosexual couple that is doing nothing but taking a walk and minding it's own business... I would consider that a hate crime... The problem is that whatever the law is, we all have to follow them and you are absolutely correct that there needs to be equal application and enforcement of the law...

Two edged sword...but fair...

[dwd1]

I would be willing to concede that there is no need for hate crimes legislation...

If you would be willing to concede that we are a long way off from equal enforcement of the law...

I noticed you said
"If the laws against assault, murder and other harm are enforced properly, everyone is protected equally. "

Let me know when that happens...I will be waiting very patiently... I have the feeling it may not happen before my 50th birthday... I would love to be wrong about this...