Thank you Rep. Virginia Foxx

[BlaqueKatt]

They moved on with their lives... I was terrified to leave my house for weeks after that... terrified that they'd finish the job.

rape victims feel this way-however rape is not considered a hate crime. And as most reported rape victims are female-it's who they are that causes it. Domestic violence-same thing-mostly female victims.

Sometimes it is about striking fear and terror into the victim.

again rape/domestic violence is about power/fear-yet that's not considered a hate crime.

Some rape/domestic violence victims can never have any kind of normal relationship-to me that is more psychological damage than any physical assault could ever cause. I've never heard of anyone being physically assaulted for any reason being terrified from ever dating again.


Look up some of the histories of serial rapists
BTK
the night stalker
ted bundy

yet the perpetration of a hate crime is considered more heinous.

Clinton's approval or disapproval was meaningless. It was already law, having overcome any veto power he would have had.

He still signed it into law-he could have at least made the gesture to veto and have it overridden-but he didn't.

[smileyeagle1021]

rape victims feel this way-however rape is not considered a hate crime. And as most reported rape victims are female-it's who they are that causes it. Domestic violence-same thing-mostly female victims.

The difference being that rape is already treated as a more heinous crime... that and if it were proposed to treat rape as a hate crime I would support it.

[AdminAssistant]

if it were proposed to treat rape as a hate crime I would support it.

As would I. Anything to get harsher sentences for rapists.

[daleduke17]

No, it wasn't murder... it was torture, it was terror, it was brutality.

Then they should have been charged with torture as well (or battery, either one).

There are already other laws on the books to charge people with then making different titles for the same damn crime.

[lordlundar]

You're missing the point dale. When it's a hate crime, it says that the person committing the crime felt justified in their actions. To the person committing the crime, they do not see themselves as criminals, but instead see themselves as crusaders, sent by whatever deity to "purge the vile ones" from the earth. These people feel that killing is wrong, unless the victim is <insert prejudice here> then it's not only okay, but it should be praised. They have no fear of punishment, because to them, they are doing good work by killing these people.

Now a serial killer usually has some sort of imbalance that they can't differentiate between right and wrong, or they do and just don't care. Hate criminals know the difference, will not cross the line, but the line vanishes dependent on their beliefs.

Now because of that imbalance SKs have, they get special responses, ranging from treatment for the problem to execution, which keeps them behind bars for the rest of their life. Hate criminals don't have that imbalance, and because it's set on beliefs, not a lack of sanity, you can't treat it without it being called brainwashing. Without the hate crime label attached, they can apply for parole, pass because they appear perfectly normal otherwise, and commit hate crimes again. The label ensures that they serve their sentence (sometimes more, depending on the circumstances) and the public is fully aware of what kind of criminal s/he is.

[smileyeagle1021]

daleduke, I know where you're coming from, I really do. Ideally I would love nothing more than for our society to be able to look at a crime and punish solely on the actions of the perpetrator without regard to who the victim was. The problem is, that as our legal system currently is set up there is no way to do that effectively and have justice. The definition of murder if the intentional killing of one person by another. Surely you would agree someone who kills someone very slowly and painfully has committed a more heinous crime than someone who kills their victim quickly and in a way that is less painful. There is some discretion for punishing the more heinous crime more severely in sentencing, but the fact is that both those people would be charged with the same crime.
Until such time that criminal law is rewritten to recognize the different levels of heinousness recieving the same end result, we'll have to settle for things like hate crimes law to help fill the gap.

[Talon]

When it's a hate crime, it says that the person committing the crime felt justified in their actions.

Begging your pardon, I don't think any intentional murderer - regardless of the victim - has ever *not* believed they were completely justified in their actions. With them it's always someone else's fault, someone else made them commit murder.

On that same note, with the possible exception of contract killers, I don't think any murderer has ever not had hate in their heart.

[DesignFox]

He still signed it into law-he could have at least made the gesture to veto and have it overridden-but he didn't.

And how much time/tax payer money would THAT have wasted? I may be completely stupid for mentioning this, but it seems to me that if he knew the veto was pointless, the smart thing to do would have been to just let it go. But then, I don't know enough about how the president's power of veto works and what happens if he vetoes and then it has to be overridden. It seems to me that if he eliminated a lot of meetings, press appearances and paper by being expedient....well, it was probably the smart thing to do.

As would I. Anything to get harsher sentences for rapists.

I could also be mistaken, but I remember watching a talk show about a young black girl that had been kidnapped, tortured, brutally raped and somehow managed to escape. Her tormentors (a group of white men and a woman) specifically targeted her because she was black. I recall her lawyers dropping the hate crime label specifically BECAUSE the sentence on a hate crime in that state was LIGHTER than the sentence for the kidnapping! So, labeling things as hate crimes is not necessarily the answer.

It probably varies from state to state...but the last thing I want is for any criminal to get off on a lesser charge just because they only target one kind of person.

And frankly, to me a rape, a kidnapping, a torture, a murder...is what it is. You commit the crime. You do the time. Whether it was for money, lust, religious, racial or whatever reason... whatever the motive, the crime is equally horrendous to me.

[Boozy]

And how much time/tax payer money would THAT have wasted? I may be completely stupid for mentioning this, but it seems to me that if he knew the veto was pointless, the smart thing to do would have been to just let it go.

Presidents don't use their veto power unless they think they have at least a small chance of it being upheld. Having a veto overridden makes the President look weak. Even if Clinton had wanted to override said bill, he would have been under immense pressure from the Democratic committee to let it go.

[lordlundar]

Begging your pardon, I don't think any intentional murderer - regardless of the victim - has ever *not* believed they were completely justified in their actions.

The anti-Muslim groups actually prove my point, so do members of the KKK, Black Panthers, etc. They don't see themselves as murderers, but soldiers fighting a war against a race of people and every "enemy" killed is one less threat. As suck, they feel no guilt, because they think if they don't kill their "enemy", that they will be killed by them.

You are right in part though. A lot of hate killers feel cheated by whatever their victim represents, usually because they feel their victim doesn't even qualify as an animal, let alone a human being. So when they see one of "them" doing well, they feel it is at their expense. But even in that case, because they feel that "they" don't deserve to exist, the act of killing someone who represents their hate brings no guilt, no remorse, because they feel that the victims are no longer "robbing from those who deserve the good stuff".

[MadMike]

I've been reading over this thread with great interest, because it may have changed my mind about something, which is something that very rarely happens.

For years, I've felt the same way about "hate crimes" that Dale did. I felt that the fact the crime was committed was what was important, not the reasoning behind it. After all, if a straight person kills another straight person, is that person any less dead if it had been a straight person killing a gay person?

But reading Smiley's posts on ths subject has given me a lot to think about. And someone -- not sure if it was him or someone else -- pointed out something that never even crossed my mind: these people are otherwise moral, law-abiding citizens who honestly think they're doing the right thing by terrorizing and brutalizing those who are the "wrong" race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I have a couple real-life friends who are bi, and an acquaitance who is gay, and I'm almost starting to wonder if I should be worried for them. Then again, they're all women, and it seems to be a lot more accepted with women than men for some reason.

Not sure I've completely changed my position on this issue, but I'm definitely rethinking things.

[tropicsgoddess]

This is one of the many reasons why I've always been a Democrat.

[Slytovhand]

Originally Posted by BlaqueKatt

He still signed it into law-he could have at least made the gesture to veto and have it overridden-but he didn't.

And how much time/tax payer money would THAT have wasted? I may be completely stupid for mentioning this, but it seems to me that if he knew the veto was pointless, the smart thing to do would have been to just let it go. But then, I don't know enough about how the president's power of veto works and what happens if he vetoes and then it has to be overridden. It seems to me that if he eliminated a lot of meetings, press appearances and paper by being expedient....well, it was probably the smart thing to do.

But... isn't the president supposed to be the voice of the people? Just think.. if he had used his veto, how would Prop-8 in Ca be looking right now?? Sure, it may have cost money, and perhaps made him look weak (maybe!!), but it would have sent a very strong message to the country, if not the world! Kev Rudd was the one who said "Sorry"... small words, but massive effect!

/back to topic...

Premeditated murder should be one crime, stalking another, torture another, etc etc. All of those would add up to a 'hate' crime... that in itself should be enough to ensure a long long time away. (btw... still don't have YouTube at work...).

[Rapscallion]

Premeditated murder should be one crime, stalking another, torture another, etc etc. All of those would add up to a 'hate' crime... that in itself should be enough to ensure a long long time away. (btw... still don't have YouTube at work...).

Not convinced by your definition of a hate crime. "He's killed one gay guy, so we're going to see if he kills another in case that's what we can charge him with?"

Somewhat out of whack with reality, but I'm typing on the spur of a moment. I can't see it being feasible that a hate crime can't be decided as such on one incident.

For example, if someone was caught in a park lynching a black guy while wearing Klan robes, even on a first offence I'd count that as a hate crime.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Well, I was just going along with DD (not the DareDevil version).

Besides, what then becomes the relevant difference between 'hate crime' (which I think we agree is sociopathic) and a true mental dysfunction - which would then mean psych ward and drugs, rather than prison or execution?