The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, HR 1913, passed the U.S. House today. The summary of the legislation from OpenCongress:
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 – Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that:
(1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and
(2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses. Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist state, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to:
(1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and
(2) award grants to state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person. Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to expand data collection and reporting requirements under such Act to include:
(1) crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and
(2) hate crimes committed by and against juveniles. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
The passage was by a vote of 249-175, mostly down party lines, with 17 Dems voting no and 18 Repubs voting aye. I think the summary of the bill sounds like something we need. Could someone tell me why there’s so much opposition to this? I was reading the comments on the OpenCongress page, and also reading some of the conservative blogs about this, but it all sounds very, very, very irrational. This act preventing an evangelical preacher from speaking in front of his congregation? Are you kidding me?
Please, someone present a rational “opposition” argument for me.
A rational argument? OK. By the number.
1. You can not, or should not legisltae how people feel.
2. All crimes involving violence can be hateful. The semantics of these laws are silly.
3. How do you define a crime outside of the exteriors such as race and sexuality? If I am beat up and claim to be a homosexual, do I have to commit fellatio in front of a jury to prove it? I am technically a member of the LDS church. If I am beat up while wearing a white shrt, does that give me a better case of being assualted because of my religion?
4. It is reverse discrimation and a true violation of equal protection and due process. A white, heterosexual man with few outwardly religious beliefs does not receive the same protection as others under hate crimes legislation.
How’s that?
Harry nailed this one tyler
its to bad i called in a little to late for this one so i got to post my comments on the blogg
i dont know if you can consider anything me and harry agree on as rational but i hope we can help
In a way it is no diffrent then the stupid drinking laws that i totaly agree with you on. We just need to impose harder penaltys on the existing laws or actuly impose the already exsisting penaltys
law and justice are to be blind for a reason. Opposing hate crimes laws is just what anyone how believes in liberty and the true meaning of law
you can not impose law diffrently based on feeling. Law is law and is the law for everyone or it is not law. You can not say a crime is worse because of the victom or you deme that by law one life is worth more then another. it is no diffrent then the nazi’s saying a blond hair blue eyed is worth more then a green eyed red hair. They said if you killed a jew because of hate it was no problem, killing a blond hair blue eyed man was a far worse penelty. Reversing it is no diffrent
Have you ever had a crime commited because of love.
think about it the people who are arguing for some of these laws are arguing against themselves. Its ok for a man to have love for another man. Law should not stop those feelings but law needs to stop another from hateing. Liberty can not be there with out alowing both. Now if a person ACTS on there hate then they have commited that crime. And should be punished for the ACT. The punishment can not be diffrent for one then another for the same ACT. Or you have gone backwards. Back to segrigation were there were laws for white men and laws for black men. Hate laws are not a progression its a return to two diffrent laws for diffrent people
by saying a black man goes out and kills another black man but then goes and kills a mexican because he hates mexicans. and impose a diffrent penelty for the death of the mexican because it was a so called “hate” crime you have just legely said that the mexican mans life was worth more then the black mans
Law is to be just and handed out blindly, I know that it hasnt always been so but this is not the way to fix it by fliping the act its not going to stop hate or the crimes that are commited no more then the vail is going to stop the drunk from driveing
with everything else in modern debate the question needs to be asked what are you trying to acomplish and will this accomplish that
By haveing stiffer peneltys based on ‘hate’ you are not stoping hate if anything you have just put a badge or metal on the person who already hated and now has something to show for it
We just need to inforce the laws we have we already have laws and peneltys for murder, asalt, ect. ect.
to eliminate hate you need to educate
not further discriminate
and seperate people
“i could have just totaly used that last part in the inagral prayer of Pres Obama that guy could ryme” and i didnt mean to either
Liberty works both ways you can not restrict someones freedom to hate any more then you should restrict someones freedom to love. But Liberty must be fallowed by responsibility for your freedoms
hate crimes will stop hate just as effective as prohabition stoped drinking
? back to hate crime supporters
That spot coming into town were it goes from 55 to 35 because i hate that speed limit does that mean that i will now be given a 350 dollar fine instead of the 45 dollar fine on everyone else because i hate that speed limit ?
Hate crimes laws are just another way for corrupt politicians and lawyers to turn undo the constitution by turning day into night and black into white. Another inch (or yard) toward their goal of controlling all.
What are you guys talking about? Without “hate-crimes” legislation, there will be millions of racist-homophobes walking the streets looking for victims!!! If the feds don’t do something, who do you think will?? State-local law enforcement?