US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Faeelin]

Yes, they are both drops in a bucket. That's 3820 crimes committed against 60,000,000+ people. Does that seem like a lot to you? Against gays that 1265 crimes committed against 20,000,000-30,000,000+ people. That's something like .0006 of the gay population is effected by hate crime.

You seriously think that's a significant number?

Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?

[Strix]

Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?

Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?

The recent amendment is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ZjTeUI:e2000111:

The main work is done here:

SEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

      (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

-`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

      `(a) In General-

            `(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

                  `(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

                  `(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

                        `(i) death results from the offense; or

                        `(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

            `(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

                  `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

                        `(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

                        `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

                              `(I) death results from the offense; or

                              `(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

                  `(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

                        `(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

                              `(I) across a State line or national border; or

                              `(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

                        `(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

                        `(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

                        `(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

                              `(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

                              `(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

            `(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

      `(b) Certification Requirement-

            `(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that--

                  `(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

                  `(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

                  `(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

                  `(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

            `(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

      `(c) Definitions- In this section--

            `(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

            `(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

            `(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;

            `(4) the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and

            `(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

      `(d) Statute of Limitations-

            `(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

            `(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.'.

      (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

            `249. Hate crime acts.'.

So yes, this applies in both directions.

Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?

[Strix]

Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?

There is no special legislation against "Date Rape" at least in NYS it falls under the Rape statutes and is treated accordingly without special protection for its victims. If they made special legislation giving extra time for date rape or for committing crimes while on a date than I would have issues.

[ulmont]

So yes, this applies in both directions.

Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?

Well, considering this bill hasn't become law yet, not under this statute.

I don't see actual conviction statistics broken down that far, but if you look at these 2005 California statistics you can see they track anti-white, anti-male, anti-Protestant, and anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf

[Strix]

Marty is easy to understand. He is insane and paranoid. He wants (and needs) to be treated special. 

For the rest, the issue is simple. No one is arguing that hate motivated crimes do not occur. I am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation, and that extra penalties can (and should only) be added by the Judge. Creating special legislation adding extra penalties violates the ideal of equal protection for all under the law while also undermining the authority of the judiciary. The US has an important system of checks and balances which shouldn't be changed especially over something that affects so few crimes and people.

I dislike hate crime legislation not because of who it protects but because it's not good for the government nor its people. I would not have an issue if greater discretion was given back to the judiciary to allow more latitude in their sentencing.

This is feel good legislation that seems harmless but is anything but harmless.

[Strix]

So yes, this applies in both directions.

Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?

Well, considering this bill hasn't become law yet, not under this statute.

I don't see actual conviction statistics broken down that far, but if you look at these 2005 California statistics you can see they track anti-white, anti-male, anti-Protestant, and anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf

I just wonder if it could be applied to violence against whites. I believe that in the US all the District Attorneys are elected (at least they were in NC and NY). I cannot see a DA charging a minority for a hate crime in a community with a large minority population i.e. most major cities in the US while I can also not see a DA charging a minority for a hate crime in a small place both for fear of being accused of racism.

[ulmont]

I just wonder if it could be applied to violence against whites.

Certainly there were 908 victims of anti-white hate crime in 2007 based on the FBI stats: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

[Martinus]

Strix: PAWNED

[Razgovory]

This is feel good legislation that seems harmless but is anything but harmless.

Glen Beck says this is just the first step.  You pass hate crimes legislature and then the commie-Nazis come for your dog.  It's all there in the Rockefeller square!  Just look for the signs, it's as plain as day.

[Admiral Yi]

Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?

Rape is already a crime, as Strix pointed out.  So are assault and murder.  The issue is whether there should be augmented sentences for date raping, say, college frehmen.

[Syt]

college frehmen.

I fail to see why Arrakis U coeds deserve special protection.

[Valmy]

Rape is already a crime, as Strix pointed out.  So are assault and murder.  The issue is whether there should be augmented sentences for date raping, say, college frehmen.

I get that logic.  The question is not whether or not there should be hate crime legislation, there already is.  If there is going to be something called hate crime legislation I do not see why homosexuals should not be included.  I also fail to see why judges and juries cannot subjectively give out harsher sentences for hate crimes on their own without a federal law but that is neither here nor there.

[Faeelin]

For the rest, the issue is simple. No one is arguing that hate motivated crimes do not occur.

Let me break down my objections, piece by piece.

I am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation,

How often does a crime need to occur to be worthy of punishment? If there were 10,000 instances, would that be enough? 100,000?

and that extra penalties can (and should only) be added by the Judge. Creating special legislation adding extra penalties violates the ideal of equal protection for all under the law while also undermining the authority of the judiciary.

I don't buy this, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But I'll add another one. Sure, sentencing is often going to fall to the judiciary. But you're saying that the legislature is not allowed to determine punishments for crimes. Why not?  Aren't you legislating from the bench here?

[Barrister]

Canada's hate crime section:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner,

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

As you can see we make it a factor to be considered on sentencing, not a whole separate crime.  I don't get why you would do that.

Also I suspect that a crime motivated by hate based on sexual oreintation would have been catched by s. 718.2(a)(ii) with or without the words sexual orientation being included there.

Finally, if you're going to have such a thing as 'hate crimes' I can't see what justification there would be for not including sexual orientation as one of the factors.

[Barrister]

I am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation,

How often does a crime need to occur to be worthy of punishment? If there were 10,000 instances, would that be enough? 100,000?

Since when does prevalence have to be a factor.  Treason is almost never prosecuted in this country, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be one of the most serious crimes.  Shoplifting happens constantly, but I'm not sure that should be a basis for making it a more serious crime.