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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.