It's about time! Although I'd asumed it was already a law. I guess we just have a state law here but I know I've seen people tried for hate crimes here in Oregon. It should be Federal too, I just thought it already was.

Gotta disagree-

A crime is a crime- no matter the motivation. A straight white male who loses his life has lost as much and their family has lost as much as a latino gay male.

It's unequal and punishes thought- when it should just punish the crime- no matter who the victim.

Unfortunately, "should" just isn't enough sometimes. Here's a fun fact:
Read the full article, "Differences in State Laws Affect Elder Abuse Reporting" here.

But hey, protesting hate crime legislation could become the next teabag revolution. Have fun storming the castle!

If you rob an old lady or abuse a position of trust to embezzle money or molest a kid, or if you associate with a gang that prompts you to commit a robbery, you're going to get a higher sentence than someone else who commits similar crimes. There is nothing wrong with identifying behavior or beliefs that carry with them a higher potential for believing that criminal activity is justifiable or can be gotten away with and then punishing the yielding to those temptations more severely as a means to deter others.

I agree with Nephythys. Hate Crime legislation is inappropriate. If I'm getting my head bashed in, it doesn't hurt any more or less based on the internal monolog of my attacker. Crime is crime, murder is murder. If you want to increase punishments for violent crimes, do it across the board.

and now for something completely different...

Coming Soon: "Sugar Daddy Ken" Doll. :eek:

Is Mattel finally admitting Ken is a mo?

I think that's fake. I can't find any legit Mattel news on it.

I see both sides of the hate crime debate. Sure, for the victim and their loved ones, a crime of violence is the same no matter what the motivation.

But for the larger community routinely targeted by violence, or a community of criminals prone to serial acts of violence - enhanced punishments are, imo, justified as a deterrent - - even though I think deterrents like that rarely deter.

Hate crimes are, in addition, a form of terrorism that impacts with fear the larger targeted community just as it impacts the actual victim with physical harm or death. When your target is more than just your victim, the punishment should be more than just that for the assault on the victim.

When James Byrd was dragged to his death behind a car, the purpose of that crime was to strike fear in the hearts of all black men. When Matthew Shepard was left beaten on a fencepost to die, it was because he was gay -- not because he was Matthew Shepard ... and therefore likely struck fear into the hearts of countless homosexuals.

These are the single victims for whom the Hate Crimes legislation was named. They were not the only victims of their respective crimes. More victims, more punishment.




So Sayeth I. :D

If I thought strong hate crime legislation would be a deterrent, I'd support it. But it's not a deterrent. You could mandate the Death Penalty for gay-bashing but that's not going to stop BillyBob from going out on Friday night for the express purpose of "killin' me wunna them faggots."

Fine, then I want BillyBob punished more for targeting fags than for targeting someone in particular. "Fags" is more than one victim, and Sasha just happened to be the one he chose that night. I have no problem feeling that if BillyBob wants to beat up fags, Sasha will be first ... and Remington will be next.


Similarly, and perhaps I reveal my bias here - - I want Malike who shot and paralyzed my nephew to be punished MORE because he was in a gang and just decided to shoot into a crowd of school kids at a bus stop. His intended victim was Paul AND OTHERS. And I have no problem feeling that if Malike is willing to shoot random strangers for his gang ... Sam will be next.