America is the only country on earth that could invent a concept like “hate crime” and I hate this invention of the politically correct. Congress, which of course has nothing better to do, just extended the crimes covered to those committed against gay people. Racially motivated crimes and crimes against Freemasons were already covered. I have nothing against gays, other races or Freemasons, but I hate the law because:First, by increasing the penalties for hate crimes, it diminishes the seriousness of a plain old crime of similar nature. If someone beats you to death just to steal your wallet are you any less dead than if you were beaten to death because of your race, and does your murderer deserve less punishment?
Second, it requires the prosecutors and the jury to be mind-readers. We’re already executing people for murders that had eye-witnesses who turned out to be wrong; isn’t this putting an awful lot of pressure on an already stressed legal system?
Third, it perpetuates and encourages the whole “victim culture” in America. I’m not going to go into this any further because it tends to make anyone who feels this way sound like Glenn Beck. I don’t want to sound like Glenn Beck, but I don’t like this crap either.
Finally, it is a classic political cop-out. The kind our Congress performs so well. Instead of doing something constructive like giving gays full rights under the Constitution, as many people feel they should, they enact this essentially meaningless statute so they can beat their chests and claim to be both pro-rights and anti-crime, while accomplishing nothing.
Retirement. Well, I just completed my first week of retirement, and I plan to write about it and get back on some regular publishing schedule soon. However, if next week is anything like last week I may have to spend 45 days at Hazeden first. I’ll be back to you soon. In the meantime – talk amongst yourselves.
Posts
14 comments:
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't HC legislation allow federal enforcement, allowing easier prosecution of certain organized groups, which might otherwise fall out of jurisdiction or slip through local prosecution, which might otherwise not have the political will to pursue? As in KKK, neo-nazis, ultra right wing Christian identity, etc? I suppose someone like Glenn Beck might begin to get concerned if it were left wing groups that bullied the populous. I just don't like bullies of any sort.
Why not be outraged about gun laws? The constitution protects the right to bear arms. But when it was written arms were muzzle-loading flintlock, single shooters. The modern gun resembles one of those like a car resembles a horse. I'd feel better with my neighbor running around with a flintlock, single shot muzzle loader than an AK 47. BTW, weren't cannon considered arms? Can I purchase a cannon and take it to a town meeting while I discuss health care?
Whatever happened to equal justice for all.
There were plenty of killings of blacks where a local jury just was not willing to convict and the Feds were trying to stop that.
It is sad to know that some of my movie western heroes were law breakers. When Marshall Dillon told the bad guys that they couldn't bring their six guns into Dodge, he was abridging their civil rights. Tsk Tsk.
I just hate this topic.
Apparently everyone does. Is everyone too politically correct to take on this hot potato or too nice to tell me I’m full of crap? There’s no fun in either of those positions – fire away.
I think that declaring an act against one group of people a hate crime while that same act against another group of people is not is absurd on its face.
However, being allowed to prosecute a crime on the federal level that won't be or isn't likely to be prosecuted locally has its uses.
So essentially, I'm abivalent on the subject and more than a little indifferent.
Okay, I'll take it a bit farther. The left says government is the answer, the right says it is the problem. Hate crimes would be a leftist agenda.
In an imperfect world, would you say government needs to get ahead of the curve in opening evolving mores to the courts? Without infringement by legislation would the American ideal of civil rights have gotten out of the antebellum rut? Slavery was a states rights issue. Who among us could defend it as being part of the American dream just because it was still on the table for over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified?
My point is that separation of politics from anything is impossible. Did the framers want the process to be fluid? Yes, that is what the amendment process is all about. But, as I said, a gun is not the gun which was considered when the document was drafted. A child or mad man with a machine gun can mow down a crowd. However, if you say a gun levels the playing field, a gun can allow a woman to defend herself against a number of men, that has virtue. And this is just interpretation, not amending.
Does hate crime legislation help fulfill the ideals of the American concept or is it too political a tool?
To get off topic even further, I heard Deepak Chopra interviewed the other day. On NPR, where else? When asked about his opinion of the health care legislation debate he said it is not about health, it is about insurance. I can't agree more. With special interests and constituents, no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: life style. And an awareness of life style would go a long way to solving the problem of health costs.
Among some people certain groups of people are hated (feared). I don't see anything wrong with according those people special protections. Perhaps you object to the phrase 'hate crimes'. What if it were phrased differently?
Who enslaved the Africans? White America. Who freed the slaves White America.A lawyer I'm not. Isn't premeditated assault/murder just that. Hate, that is acted upon.There are some types of people I just don't like. The goverment cannot tell me who to like and not like. I don't own a gun never did, Should I be scared of those that do, or the ones that own assault rifles? I'm not.There will ALWAYS be an illegal element of society that will make their own laws or take advantage of laws and hurt people.
We need to purge hate from our vocabulary.
Let's go with Extreme Aversion Crime or Intense Dislike Crime
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/16/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-louisiana/
I remain unconvinced. the killer is the need to be a mind reader to convict. did he act because he hated that person, or all people like him. how does one prove that without the skill to get inside someone's head. don't we presume innocence? don't we value protecting the innocent above all? do the Feds really need more power and do you really trust them with the power they have now?
You can sucker punch me if you call me a dou he bag, which I am, but it is a federal offense to do the same if you call me a k ke, even though I am, you risk hard time. Sounds fair to me! But really, a bunch of red necks picking up a Mexican worker and beating him to death deserves a special place in hell. Don't you think the government has a moral obligation to say to the community this behavior is abhorrent?
What can you say about the federal government? It is miles ahead of Karzi's kleptocracy.
I think we'r long overdue to find out just what we do believe. It's time for a national survey. The constitution has worked well for this long but how many of those belief do we still value? Elections elect people,not beliefs. The survey should first explore issues that did'nt exist on todays scale in 1776: weapons,abortion,equal rights for all,welfare,healthcare,imigration, electronics,space travel.
Then the survey should address broader issues: do we owe the poor anything?,what are the duties of this government?, duties of the wealthy? ,butter vs. bullets how much to either?, what should stay or go in the Constitution?,limits to wages,profits,taxes,size of government?
I think we'd all be very surprised at who we really are.
Post a Comment