Should hate crime laws be expanded?

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
House approves expanded hate crime law

On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.

The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

A violent crime perpetrated due to greed, lust, or whatever is less serious than one motivated by hatred.

Why is that?:confused:
 
Werbung:
Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask a question....... why is this necessary?

"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," Hoyer said.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," Obama said in a statement before the vote.


According to the FBI their latest figures.......

Total Incidents 7,624
Total Offenses 9,006
Total Offenders 6,965

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/downloadablepdfs/07hcpressrel.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm

2007 are the latest available figures from the FBI. I assume this legislation has been based on FBI stats since all states are supposed to inform the FBI of all hate crime incidents, thus politicians will be lookling at these as being the authoritative figures? So the total population of the US is over 300 million and there have been 7,600 offences...........If so this legislation is a load of rubbish and just window dressing designed to appease lobbists and special interest groups - as I said I'm sticking my neck out.
 
House approves expanded hate crime law



A violent crime perpetrated due to greed, lust, or whatever is less serious than one motivated by hatred.

Why is that?:confused:

It is all ridiculous. Murder is murder regardless of if the person murdered was killed because they were gay or black or whatever. We already have laws on the books to handle these cases. This is a useless bill.
 
Crimes motivated by greed also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric. the only difference is that the segment affected by crimes of greed is the segment that has something worth stealing. If there were no crimes of greed we would not need locks or passwords or safes or most lawyers, on and on and on.

But you can't legislate greed any more than you can legislate hate. What can be legislated is murder and theft.
 
they added Pedophilia to the group of protected people. Even when the republicans asked for a vote to take Pedophilia out, the dems refused.

When the republicans tried to put servicemen and women in some sick dem woman went off on him and was insulted that he felt the servicemen and women should be protected.

hate crime laws have always been stupid, but now they are disgusting.

next we will give special laws and rules to people into necrophilia and beastiality
 
they added Pedophilia to the group of protected people. Even when the republicans asked for a vote to take Pedophilia out, the dems refused.

When the republicans tried to put servicemen and women in some sick dem woman went off on him and was insulted that he felt the servicemen and women should be protected.

hate crime laws have always been stupid, but now they are disgusting.

next we will give special laws and rules to people into necrophilia and beastiality

"they"
"the dems"
"some sick dem woman"

Who are these people?

Are you saying that all of the Democrats in Congress favor pedophiles over servicemen?

Or, are there some stupid people in Congress that favor pedophiles over servicemen?

Well, we know that there are stupid people in Congress. Stupid voters put them there.
 
The female dem who got all over the male republican for wanting servicemen and women to be protected in the hate crime laws I dont know, I can look it up. I listened to the clip this afternoon on Lars Larson but was not familiar with the people arguing.

As for the voting to put pendophelia in the hate crime law, there was a vote and the clip showed the dems voting not to take it out.

again, Ill try and find the clip for you.
 
Here is one video, Ill look for more information



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3F80r3h7Y&feature=player_embedded>


you know, even after seeing the video and not just hearing it, I still cant tell you who the woman was who got her panties in a bunch for the man wanting to add military to the hate crimes, I have never seen her before, and I already cant remember the name of the republican who wanted it.

The clip isnt working but you can click the link to the website and see it.

The republican male asked to amend the bill to exclude pedophiles the dems voted not to amend the bill to exclude pedophiles. I need to find the bill because necrophilia might be protected now too and that is strange.

The same republican man asked to amend the bill to add service men and women because there are cases of them being spit on, threatened, and attacked.. the woman went livid and refused and was basicly insulted that he even asked.

Apparently the republicans also tried to add pregnant women and the elderly to the list but the dems refused to amend it for that either.
 
Here is the vote count.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll223.xml

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 223
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 1913 RECORDED VOTE 29-Apr-2009 4:55 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act


Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 231 17 8
Republican 18 158 2
Independent

TOTALS 249 175 10




---- AYES 249 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth



---- NOES 175 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)



---- NOT VOTING 10 ---

Berry
Burgess
Butterfield
Granger
Miller, George
Murtha
Perriello
Ruppersberger
Stark
Teague
 
Posted by Pandora:

you know, even after seeing the video and not just hearing it, I still cant tell you who the woman was who got her panties in a bunch for the man wanting to add military to the hate crimes, I have never seen her before, and I already cant remember the name of the republican who wanted it.
The woman was who got her panties in a bunch was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. No doubt, she is the "sick dem woman" referred to as well. You can hear her make the pitch for hate crimes on her web site here.

Interestingly enough, she starts her speech by saying, "It seems to me it is the category of individuals who are affected" that determines whether we are for hate crimes legislation.

Yes, it does seem that it is the category of individuals she is concerned about, doesn't it?

And, it does appear that it was the Democrats who were in favor of the "hate crime" legislation, while Republicans voted against it.

I think the Republicans are right this time around: We don't need hate crimes legislation, and especially don't need it expanded.

Do pedophiles need protection? Well, if one were to molest one of my grandchildren, and I were able to get him one on one, yes indeed, he would need protection. I might need a good lawyer afterward, if I got caught that is.

Do soldiers need protection from hate crimes? That one is debatable. I don't believe we need hate crimes laws, but, if we have them, then they should cover everyone. no exceptions, even that pedophile whose body I just dumped in the river. (in my imagination, of course)

I think you pegged it right this time despite some rather vague references taken from a right wing blog: It was the Democrats who voted for this nonsensical bill, and the Republicans who wanted to exclude pedophiles and include soldiers, but wound up voting against it.
 
Posted by Pandora:


The woman was who got her panties in a bunch was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. No doubt, she is the "sick dem woman" referred to as well. You can hear her make the pitch for hate crimes on her web site here.

Interestingly enough, she starts her speech by saying, "It seems to me it is the category of individuals who are affected" that determines whether we are for hate crimes legislation.

Yes, it does seem that it is the category of individuals she is concerned about, doesn't it?

And, it does appear that it was the Democrats who were in favor of the "hate crime" legislation, while Republicans voted against it.

I think the Republicans are right this time around: We don't need hate crimes legislation, and especially don't need it expanded.

Do pedophiles need protection? Well, if one were to molest one of my grandchildren, and I were able to get him one on one, yes indeed, he would need protection. I might need a good lawyer afterward, if I got caught that is.

Do soldiers need protection from hate crimes? That one is debatable. I don't believe we need hate crimes laws, but, if we have them, then they should cover everyone. no exceptions, even that pedophile whose body I just dumped in the river. (in my imagination, of course)

I think you pegged it right this time despite some rather vague references taken from a right wing blog: It was the Democrats who voted for this nonsensical bill, and the Republicans who wanted to exclude pedophiles and include soldiers, but wound up voting against it.

Oh Gosh we agree again. I also do not think we need hate crimes laws. Everyone should be equal under the law. A man throwing a brick in my window should be charged exactly the same as if he threw a brick in my homosexual friend’s window.

but.... if they insist on having hate crimes laws and insist on expanding them then I think they could have taken that opportunity to amend the bill and take out pedophile and put in military service men and women.
 
It seems to me that the pedophiles have been systematically targeted by congress. So if they need any protection it is mostly from congress.

Rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals have also been systematically targeted by congress. Does that mean they need protection also?
 
Werbung:
While this is not the 'norm' but some other 'NON CLEAR HEADED ADULTS' have on ocassion tried to utilize the "hate crime hype" to get out of their responsibility:

Olathe Daily News {circa 1990} A couple was hit by a 'hate crime' of someone spray painting racial slurs on their house! Ya, well as it turns out the 'couple' did it to the own house in an attempt to get out of their rental agreement! But it was all over the front page of the paper, it stirred up quite a lot of 'letter to the Editors' about how middle America were just a bunch of red-neck-Card-Carrying-Members-of-the-KKK. And then when the truth finally came out it was on Page 4!

And how do I know about the 'truth' behind all of that: well it seems that the couple had applied and were hired as sister & brother for work at the City of Olathe {where I was employed} and when the story broke they were both working for the same department and that was against City policy. JEEZ...not bright, not at all. We don't need to rename any laws for the benefit of heinous crimes...we just need to tighten up the penalities for those 'heinous' acts! IMO
 
Back
Top