Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays - Page 5 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays

...

Page 5 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page 5 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10-23-2009 , 08:10 PM

#101

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

^^^^------that was for Wynton's benefit.

10-23-2009 , 08:10 PM

#102

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

what don't you understand?

10-23-2009 , 08:11 PM

#103

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

The answer is that the prosecution has to prove it as an ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. It has nothing to do with any "appeal based on constitutional grounds".

10-23-2009 , 08:20 PM

#104

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

why would the prosecution have to prove a connection to interstate commerce as an element of the offense? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with law procedure/court room procedure/the term 'element of the offense', but some quick googling suggests to me that there are three 'elements', conduct, state of mind, and circumstances?

10-23-2009 , 08:25 PM

#105

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

no, an element of the offense is anything that the prosecution must prove to establish that the crime in question has been committed.

10-23-2009 , 08:30 PM

#106

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

ok, so why does the prosecution have to prove a connection to interstate commerce to establish that the crime has been committed?

Does the Mathew Shepard Act stipulate "hate crimes = crimes based on race that affect interstate commerce?" I don't think it stipulates this, but I haven't read the bill, just the Washington Post article on it. So if it doesn't stipulate this, an affect on interstate commerce is irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed (the crime being an act of violence based on sex, creed, color, etc).

10-23-2009 , 08:36 PM

#107

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

ok, so why does the prosecution have to prove a connection to interstate commerce to establish that the crime has been committed?

Does the Mathew Shepard Act stipulate "hate crimes = crimes based on race that affect interstate commerce?" I don't think it stipulates this, but I haven't read the bill, just the Washington Post article on it. So if it doesn't stipulate this, an affect on interstate commerce is irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed (the crime being an act of violence based on sex, creed, color, etc).

Yes, it does. Google S.909 and you can read the text.

10-23-2009 , 08:43 PM

#108

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

I think you need to re-read it, unless I'm reading an outdated version of the bill. It doesn't stipulate that hate crimes are crimes based on race that affect interstate commerce, it says that some hate crimes happen to affect interstate commerce. Under Section 3 "hate crime" is defined for the purposes of the bill, and no such stipulation exists.

10-23-2009 , 08:50 PM

#109

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Ahhh, ok, now I see what you are talking about. I was focused on the "gays" part. The race/national origin part doesn't need an interstate commerce element as it is enacted pursuant to the enabling clause of the 14th amendment.

EDIT: Also sec 3 is not relevant; the crimes are defined in section 7.

10-23-2009 , 08:57 PM

#110

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

When you claim the enabling clause applies that implies that one of the 14th amendment protections is being trampled on. Right? So when I beat up a black guy because he is black, how am I doing something that requires Congress to pass appropriate enforcement legislation? Edit: Question is better phrased, "How does Congress have the authority to make a law stopping me from assaulting a black guy because he is black, based on the 14th amendment?"

Quote:

EDIT: Also sec 3 is not relevant; the crimes are defined in section 7.

(Sec. 7 doesn't make reference to interstate commerce either, afaik?)

10-23-2009 , 09:02 PM

#111

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

(Sec. 7 doesn't make reference to interstate commerce either, afaik?)

SEC. 7. 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, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

10-23-2009 , 09:07 PM

#112

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

ooo ic, I was looking at 7.1, not 7.2. Why doesn't 7.1 have a subparagraph B like 7.2 does? Goes back to your claims about the 14th amendment, which I still don't understand.

10-23-2009 , 09:16 PM

#113

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

ooo ic, I was looking at 7.1, not 7.2. Why doesn't 7.1 have a subparagraph B like 7.2 does? Goes back to your claims about the 14th amendment, which I still don't understand.

Yeh, you were looking only at the race part; I was looking only at the gays part.

Sorry, not the 14th Amendment, the 13th. They are going for a "badges and incidents of slavery" justification. Stupid imo, I would just do interstate commerce for all of it. See (7) and (8) of the findings.

10-23-2009 , 09:23 PM

#114

NeBlis

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 12,039

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

If you're asking if crimes against whites qua whites have ever been prosecuted as hate crimes, the answer is of course yes. ldo.

grunching .. but can you cite this for me plz?

10-23-2009 , 09:27 PM

#115

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeBlis

grunching .. but can you cite this for me plz?

As Claunchy mentioned in post 29, the leading Supreme Court case in the field is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell

10-23-2009 , 09:29 PM

#116

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

Intent has long been a factor in determining whether to convict someone. Why is this any different?

This isn't about intent, this is about motive.

10-23-2009 , 09:32 PM

#117

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

This isn't about intent, this is about motive.

So what, other crimes turn on motive. See the rest of the thread.

10-23-2009 , 09:45 PM

#118

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

Just a quick question. If I was on a jury where someone was charged with a hate crime and it's clear that the defendant was guilty, would the "hate crime" be a separate charge.

The reason is, I think it's difficult to go above the standard of reasonable doubt because it's very difficult to prove hate absent a defendant admission.

10-23-2009 , 09:45 PM

#119

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

How come none of you guys saying "thoughtcrime" are addressing Erik's question?

I'm curious why everyone saying "thoughtcrime" is using the word completely improperly. Are people being rounded up for thinking things the government doesn't like? Oh, wait, they're just being arrested for beating and killing people?

ITT: People jizzing their pants over the opportunity to apply doubleplusungood Orwellian vocabulary to the government

10-23-2009 , 10:01 PM

#120

elwoodblues

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mempho

Nobody said these were easy to prove --- they're not. You are right, hate-motive would be tough to prove. Things that might help it not be so tough: defendant has a history of belonging to the klan, defendant told his friends he was going to try to kill a ***, defendant yelling racial epithets as he attacked the victim, etc.

10-23-2009 , 10:09 PM

#121

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

Yeh, you were looking only at the race part; I was looking only at the gays part.

Sorry, not the 14th Amendment, the 13th. They are going for a "badges and incidents of slavery" justification.

lol wat. So then it's only for black people?

i kinda want to beat up a gay person just so i can challenge the constitutionality of this **** under the 10th amendment. i feel like we have a Court right now that is itching to build on Lopez.

edit: in before 'beat up yourself', and "does neblis hit you?"

10-23-2009 , 10:31 PM

#122

Claunchy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 10,757

If your plan is to challenge it under the 10th amendment I hope you like jail.

10-23-2009 , 10:36 PM

#123

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claunchy

If your plan is to challenge it under the 10th amendment I hope you like jail.

Locked in with hundreds of other men? What do you think?

10-23-2009 , 10:37 PM

#124

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

If X murders Z because Z is gay/black/fillintheblank, it's more than simply murder of one particular person. It has the effect (and I would argue, the intent) of telling other gay/black/fillintheblanks you're next.

10-23-2009 , 10:39 PM

#125

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

If they ever outlaw some form of speech as hate speech, it would be tempting to engage in it just to challenge it.

As for the 10th amendment, there are just so many ways it should be challenged. For all intents and purposes, the 10th amendment has become a sham.

Page 5 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last

...

Page 5 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last