example of why some hate crime laws are not good

[BlaqueKatt]

this is the only info I could find on this

When this subject came up last week in the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment to the hate crimes bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 13-10.

In other words-a parent defending their child from a known pedophile could be charged with a "hate crime"

The debate is over: for liberals, child molesters should be given the same rights as homosexuals. Moreover, they should be given more rights than pregnant women and veterans; the latter two categories were explicitly denied coverage under the hate crimes bill.

[Greenday]

I have a feeling that will only apply if you violently defend your kid from a sex offender that is a pedophile that is not actually even trying to contact your kid. It happens a lot. Vigilantes going after sex offenders, even when sex offenders are just trying to live their lives.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I have a problem with hate crimes legislation. The way I understand it is thusly: A friend and I are walking down the street and we are both attacked by two guys. We're both clubbed in the head and end up in the hospital with the same injury.

The guy that beat her up gets a stiffer sentence because she happens to prefer sex with women and I prefer it with men.

Am I understanding that correctly?

[daleduke17]

I have a problem with hate crimes legislation. The way I understand it is thusly: A friend and I are walking down the street and we are both attacked by two guys. We're both clubbed in the head and end up in the hospital with the same injury.

The guy that beat her up gets a stiffer sentence because she happens to prefer sex with women and I prefer it with men.

Am I understanding that correctly?

That's it pretty much in a nutshell.

[Nyoibo]

They do have to prove that the attackers knew her sexual preference and that the attack was motivated by that.

[smileyeagle1021]

I have a feeling that will only apply if you violently defend your kid from a sex offender that is a pedophile that is not actually even trying to contact your kid. It happens a lot. Vigilantes going after sex offenders, even when sex offenders are just trying to live their lives.

I'm going to have to go with Greenday on this... that pedophiles weren't excluded from hate crime legislation because of the high level of vigilantism. Self defense and defense of other, to my knowledge, has never and will never be affected by hate crime laws.

They do have to prove that the attackers knew her sexual preference and that the attack was motivated by that.

exactly... so in the example of the two people walking down the street, unless it can be proven that the attackers attacked because of the person's (insert protected status here) it is still treated as a standard assault and battery case. And if they were attacking jointly because of that person's (protected status) then it is likely that both of them would be charged with hate crime even though only one of them actually struck someone of that protected class... hate crime laws are more about the intent of the perpetrator than the status of the victim... a thug could be theoretically charged with a hate crime even if the victim was a straight white male if it can be proven that the person attacked them because they believed the victim was a gay black woman (extreme case, but still theoretically possible).

[Boozy]

The guy that beat her up gets a stiffer sentence because she happens to prefer sex with women and I prefer it with men.

Am I understanding that correctly?

No. You are completely misunderstanding.

That crime would not fall under hate crime legislation, since there is no indication that hatred for her sexual preference was a motive in the attack.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Ah. Okay. So it's not just "whoa, this woman is a lesbian, lets ramp up the sentence for the perp." They have to prove motive.

Alright, question two: What if it's proven that (hypothetically....this did not happen) we were attacked becuase they thought we were a couple? If the perp thinks I'm gay, too, do I fall under suspected status?

[Greenday]

From my understanding, if you were to be beaten because your attacker thought you were gay even if you are not, it'd still fall under a hate crime. But once again, you'd have to be able to prove that the attack was a result of discrimination.

[AdminAssistant]

Alright, question two: What if it's proven that (hypothetically....this did not happen) we were attacked becuase they thought we were a couple? If the perp thinks I'm gay, too, do I fall under suspected status?

Yes.

And usually motive isn't that hard to prove, since these people believe they are doing society a favor by beating up/killing/whatever gays, blacks, women, insert special group *here*.

[Boozy]

Motive is introduced in most murder trials, and is a factor in deciding appropriate charges. Hate crime legislation is not about the victim, it's about the perpetrator. And it has nothing to do with valuing the lives of minorities more than the lives of non-minorities.

The justice system already acknowledges the importance of motive and intent in determining sentencing and the seriousness of charges laid. Hate crimes laws give the system an added tool for evaluating how dangerous some criminals are to society at large.

Example: A man is killed. The prosecutors (ideally) don't care so much whether or not the victim is black or white, a drug dealer or a school teacher. The corresponding murder charges and the differences in sentencing guidelines will differ depending on the perpetrator's mindset and situation. Factors include intent (homicide vs. manslaughter) and level of premeditation and malice aforethought (first vs second degree).

Whether or not hate crimes legislation is required depends on whether or not there are appropriate charges already on the books to deal with this breed of assault/murder. One of the difficulties prosecutors face when dealing with these crimes is that they tend to be "heat of the moment" (ie, a bigot is enraged by sight of two men holding hands and kills them). They then have trouble making a case for first-degree murder, even though the crime is certainly heinous enough to warrant the corresponding sentencing guidelines.

The right has tried to make hate crimes legislation sound like some sort of liberal agenda to push white heterosexual males to the fringes of society. This is blatantly false.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Okay. That makes more sense now, I didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying.

[Boozy]

this is the only info I could find on this

When this subject came up last week in the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment to the hate crimes bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 13-10.

In other words-a parent defending their child from a known pedophile could be charged with a "hate crime"

I never did get around to addressing the original post.

Unfortunately, until you're able to give us information about this aside from the link provided (which is a four paragraph opinion piece, 90% of which consists of quotes from the Catholic League), then I'm not willing to accept your interpretation.

It does not seem at all plausible to me that a Democrat (who presumably wants to get re-elected) would make it illegal for a parent to use force to get a pedophile to stop molesting their child.

I suspect the real story here is that many less-enlightened areas of the world consider gay men to be potential pedophiles. The legislators didn't want lynch mobs of parents forming, killing a gay man rumoured to be a pedophile, and then using the "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" as a legally-valid excuse.

[Flyndaran]

Most child rapists aren't pedophiles and most pedophiles aren't rapists.

I wish the public would get that through their blasted head.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in that it isn't a choice any more than herterosexuality is. The choice is whether to act on it or not.