20 responses so far ↓

• 1 Terri // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  I’m kind of on the fence about hate crimes legislation in general, but it is great news that the GBLT community is now included in this law.

• 2 Conservative // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  I think it’s kinda chicken crap that the only way this could get passed was attaching it to something totally unrelated and virtually assured of passage and signing. Who wants to be against funding the troops, after all?

  I actually agree with Terri (gasp!!!) about hate crimes legislation — a crime is a crime and why should the motivation of prejudice be any different than, say, the motivation of greed? — but I don’t like the way this was passed.

  For all its faults, at least Kentucky doesn’t allow legislation to cover more than one thing at a time. ‘Twould be nice if the feds could do it the same way. I don’t like it when either side engages in this behavior, either to get something passed or to put a poison pill in it.

• 3 curtis morrison // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  @Conservative. This is personal for me.
  When I was 20 (and not out of the closet to myself even)- a bunch of thugs that thought I was gay, called in a fake pizza order to a vacant house.When I got out of the car, they beat the hell out of me with a baseball bat while yelling “Take that Fag!” and then they left me for dead. After about 20 minutes I crawled back in the car and drove back to the store with the one arm that wasn’t broken. They hadn’t take my money or even the pizzas.
  If they had been apprehended, with only a class B felony assault charge- I doubt they’d even got more than a week in jail.

  Motivation, or intent, has always been and should be a crucial part of penal code. If you ran over me with your car because you were texting, should you get death penalty?

• 4 Terri // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  I think it’s kinda chicken crap that the only way this could get passed was attaching it to something totally unrelated and virtually assured of passage and signing. Who wants to be against funding the troops, after all?

  Hmm…where have I heard that before. I am quite sure you were equally outraged at all the bullshit house and senate conservatives pushed through using the same tactics.

  I actually agree with Terri (gasp!!!) about hate crimes legislation — a crime is a crime and why should the motivation of prejudice be any different than, say, the motivation of greed?

  This has nothing at all to do with why I am reluctant about hate crimes legislation overall and is a disingenuous argument, though I suspect you know that already. (See also: gay panic defense.) The criticisms outlined here more closely approximate my own thoughts on hate crimes legislation.

• 5 Terri // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  Kudos, Curtis. And I am so sorry that happened to you when you were younger. :(

• 6 Conservative // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Curtis, what happened to you was reprehensible, but your comment about texting and the death penalty is a bit disingenuous. My feelings on texting and driving aside, the death penalty is reserved for certain cases and if I understand Kentucky’s law correctly, a murder committed while in the commission of another crime is required for the death penalty to be applicable. That’s why just your everyday shooting might not be eligible for the death penalty, but Steve Nunn probably is because he did what he did while in violation of an EPO.

  And Terri, I think all legislation should stand on its own merits, no matter who sponsors it.

• 7 curtis morrison // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  Terri- Thanks for that link. I had never considered a few of those perspectives, like the effect of the perpetrator relations to LGBT-prisoners. Wow. I’m thinking your perspective was summed up in that blog: “Hate crimes don’t occur because there aren’t enough laws against them, and hate crimes won’t stop when those laws are in place. Hate crimes occur because, time and time again, our society demonstrates that certain people are worth less than others; that certain people are wrong, are perverse, are immoral in their very being.”

• 8 briansmith // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:58 pm

  Curtis, shame on you for being so disingenuous after relating that highly personal story. Please keep conservative’s feelings in mind next time. He’s more sensitive to misinterpretations of the death penalty than he is to your near-death experience at the hands and bat of conservatives.

• 9 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:33 am

  Conservative, you have dug yourself a hole.

  While I typically have problems with special class legislation, the making of a violent act a Federal crime will have a similar effect to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. That being that you will have a standardization of punishment in areas where the populous may be more or less willing to prosecute crimes against GBLTs.
  Hopefully this will reduce controversial light State prosecutions in less tolerant states.

• 10 Carter Burger // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:40 am

  This is the problem I have with “hate” crimes legislation and this question is for curtis. How would any of this legislation stop what happened to you?

  A crime is a crime, regardless of what the perpetrator’s motivation or intent is/was. Those guys assaulted you, period. Does not matter if they “thought” you were gay or not.

• 11 jake // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:53 am

  In case you wingnuts are forgetful: We won’t be having a “Hate Crimes are Thought Crimes SOCIALIZMZ!!” discussion again. This isn’t a free speech zone.

  If anyone can – in their right mind – suggest that hate crimes legislation isn’t a good thing… something is jacked in your head.

  This ‘all crimes are hate crimes’ crap is pure right-wing spin and it’s been used for decades. Unfortunately for you, that argument is dead now that this legislation has been passed. Your faux argument failed.

  And as this article suggests? There’s only really one legit concern people could have with the legislation… and none of you mouthbreathers ever bother to bring it up: double jeopardy.

  But thanks for your ignorant spin.

• 12 Conservative // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:03 am

  Given the fact that it has been posted this morning that McConnell voted against this bill, I think it’s 100 percent certain that his opponent next time will proudly and happily hold up this vote and say McConnell “voted against the military.” Looks like liberals got a twofer with this one.

• 13 jake // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:05 am

  Conservative: I tried coming up with a joke about a big, homo double-edged sword… but… it just turned out too dirty. Sorry.

• 14 hersh // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:09 am

  The most important facet of this is that the bill publicly acknowledges on a federal level that prejudice of this kind still exists within our so-called evolving political correctness.

• 15 tbrauch // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:18 am

  Conservative, I hate to call you a liar, since I don’t even know you, but let’s hear your opinion on this situtation, since “a crime is a crime.”

  You really think each of the following cases should be prosecuted the same and seek the same penalty?

  (1) Because of muggings in the niehgborhood where you work, you get a gun, and while you don’t have a conceal-carry permit you keep it in your jacket pocket. On the way to the car one night, you slip, the gun goes off and kills the local drug dealer causing all the problems. Crime committed: You shot and killed a guy.

  (2) You have a conceal-carry permit because of all the violence happening near your work. Every day the local homeles man begs you for money. You’ve had a bad day at work and as you are walking to your car the homeless guy gets very intimidating (but not physical) in asking for money. You’ve had enough, pull out your gun, and shoot the guy. Crime committed: You shot and killed a guy.

  (3) Your coworker is annoying and every day goes out of his way to bother you, even to the point where he tells people he is trying to piss you off. You know that every Friday he goes out to a bar after work. You get a gun, take the day off on Friday and go wait for him in the parking lot of the bar. As he pulls in, you go over and shoot him. Crime committed: You shot and killed a guy.

  So, you think in all three cases, the exact same penalties should be sought? I mean, why should motive matter, in all three cases you shot and killed a guy?

  So, do you think all thre should be penalized the same or did you lie when you said “a crime is a crime” and motive is irrelevant?

• 16 Conservative // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:59 am

  Scenario 1: You didn’t kill anyone, at least not intentionally. It was an accident. You didn’t intentionally pull the trigger. In fact, you didn’t pull it at all. The real crime here is a weapons violation. Maybe a negligent homicide charge would be applicable.

  Scenarios 2 and 3 should be treated equally.

  If anyone thinks that any one person’s opposition or any group’s opposition to hate crimes legislation means that the person or group supports literal gay bashing (or beating or killing) they they’ve bought into a false stereotype. Many believe it, regardless of its intent, to be bad law — such as the double jeopardy argument link Jake posted.

  There are lots of conservatives who approach their anti-abortion arguments not on the subject of abortion alone, but in the belief that Roe v. Wade is bad law and was not settled in a sound manner. They have problems with the methodology of the judgment. I believe Mark Levin is one of those; he’s a constitutional lawyer who happens to have a talk show and is an author. He approaches these subjects not from a social aspect, but a legal aspect.

• 17 tbrauch // Oct 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  “Maybe a negligent homicide charge would be applicable.”

  Now you are admiting that, depending on circumstances even though a gun in your possession was used to kill some one that things can be different.

  Nice to see that you lied when you said a crime is a crime , regardless of motive. The first guy didn’t mean to kill the person, but he did. Why should his motive matter, be it not intentional, race, or greed?

  Good to see how things are black and white with you, except when they aren’t.

• 18 Conservative // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  Bzzt. Wrong. No one intentionally killed anyone in scenario 1. No one intentionally pulled the trigger. That was an accident. In scenarios 2 and 3, the conscious decision was made to pull the trigger.

  Now if you had said the guy had pulled the gun and shot the drug dealer in scenario 1, it would have been different.

  You presented one scenario that was completely different than the other two.

  Let’s take Curtis’ tragic incident. If the motive had been to rob him of the money he was carrying or the pizzas he was delivering, is the assault any different? Should it be treated differently?

• 19 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  Let’s take politics out of it and look at it from a missed practical standpoint.

  I think that we all can agree that if a person commits a violent crime against another, that they should serve the maximum amount of that sentence as possible.

  Facts (Hoover Institute Study-Standford Univeristy – 2004):

  Percentage of sentence served for violent crimes in State prisons: 66%

  Percentage of sentence served for violent crimes in Federal prisons: 88%

  As such, the Federalization of the hate crime violence will result in the criminals committing those violent crimes serving longer sentences.

  Conservative, I can’t believe that you would support shorter sentences for violent criminals.

  As you may know, I am a conservative and listen to Levin and others, but you need to think for yourself by taking those conservative arguments with others, and formulate your own opinions and not regurgitate ones you hear on the radio.

• 20 marie // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  Absolutely essential legislation.

  As Roger said in a previous thread, fear enters into
  it in an insidious way. And when the risk remains of a case being ‘buried,’ the passage of this bill is an important safeguard.

Leave a Comment