Well... if every American male would just turn GAY...these people will no have to worry about it anymore. There will just be a bunch of ethnic kids and single mothers bitching about all the GAY men.

All great questions. I'm not a lawyer but, to me, the basic premise of these laws is to say - yes, if you killed someone simply because they are gay then you've done more than just kill them. You've created terror, you've sent a message.

Think about it this way - if I'm gay and I see that you just killed a guy because he's gay, you've created more than just a sense of fear in terms of human safety, you've created a message of terror - that there are people willing to kill me simply because of who I sleep with. Now, should that be the ENTIRE basis for your punishment, of course not! But, should it be included as a weight/crime when deciding how to punish you - I think so.

But, in terms of "proving" it. I would assume it would work the same as trying to prove you premeditated any crime.

Sorry retard, there was muslim already charged with a hate crime (unless you're telling me Naveed Afzal Haq is a white man).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206734,00.html

Put your foot in your mouth, and take your head out of your rear while you're at it.

People who are against hate crimes make absolutely no sense. I suppose a murder that's premeditated is no different than unpremeditated murder?

Sigh...

First, I didn't mean to imply that Mark is irreconcilably stupid; didn't see his post before that comment was made.

Having said that, I now ask - If "big bird" has some euphemistic meaning of which I am unaware, does it then become hateful? Snoop Dawg can call Fitty-Cent "nigger" and it's all good. Not so for me. What about the TV program "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? So it's not just the word, it's who utters the word. And what of context?

BTW, the court is the venue for the trial, The Court refers to the judge, it is up to the prosecutor to make the case. And, other than an overt statement like "I killed him on purpose because he was a homosexual", how can you really prove that intent to the degree of certainty required for conviction of a capital offense?

Will "hate" killers be revived just at the point of death and injected again rather than just executed? What about a homosexual killing a heterosexual? What if A get into a fight with B BECAUSE of an unwanted sexual advance and accidentally kills him? Will there be a crime called "hate manslaughter"? If a homosexual love triangle blows up and someone ends up dead, is the killer guilty of a hate crime?

why don't we just go ahead and make two sets of laws. one for straight white males and one for everyone else. We all know this is exactly what is desired. I will gladly put my foot in my mouth when someone who does not fit this description gets charged with a hate crime. Oh wait I forgot straight white males are the only ones with the capacity for hate, everyone else is just as nice as can be.

After reading all of Copyleft's posts on the Janet Napolitano story today, I wonder if he thinks it would be a crime to cross the border if the intent was to harass gay people? Or would it be a civil violation?

Just wondering....

You're missing the point.

If you run over someone who happens to be gay, no hate crime was committed because of your intent.

If you run over someone BECAUSE they are gay and the court can show your intent, that's a much different crime because of your INTENT. And it should be treated as such.

Sure, in both cases you ran over someone. But the impact of your intent grows as it becomes focused on an individual for something like the color of their skin or who they decide to sleep with.

The problem with this sort of law is that it is not based upon an action, but an emotion. Setting laws that criminalize human emotions set a dangerous precedent. While I do not think hate is an emotion that should be promoted within a society, I also do not think it is something that should be criminalized. The current laws that criminalize the action of these thought processes is sufficient in itself. No further legislation is required to prosecute violent offenders.

...as long as you do it for the right reason. You can murder millions, as long as you do it in the name of marx or allah.

I am a law-abiding citizen, I dont care if the nut jobs who violate this get more punishment. So what is wrong with this?

There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter is w/o hate/malice. Murder is intended to harm. It is an action of hate. We need not distinguish between who the hate is being targeted toward.

No, the question would be how my actions reflected my intent and what could be proven in a court of law.

If I painted "big bird" on his car, kind of hard to prove I had intent other than pure vandalism. But, a directed insult at the victims race (or sexual orientation for that matter) implies a darker intent and should at least be examined legally as part of the punishment.

To do otherwise, to me, ignores the scope of the impact of the crime. Because, as the victim, the crime is greater if it's directed not just at my property but at me personally (be it my race or sexual orientation).

So, why would anyone argue that looking at the full intent of the crime not be examined under the law and have laws to punish crimes whose impact is greater than the scope of the pure actions of the person committing the crime?

As has been stated, if I fly off the handle and kill someone, the punishment for that is less than if I carefully plan to kill them.

There is no difference in the approach here. Intent matters. At least in terms of being part of the crime that is examined for appropriate punishment.

I don't think anyone is saying "thoughts" are now on the block as crimes. You can think horrible things all day long. But if you act on those thoughts, how your actions impact your victim should be examined if you've broken the law by those actions.

I make it a point to maintain sufficient mental self-discipline to keep myself from even thinking words like "homosexual" and you come right out and say "nigger"?!?!

Good look in the big house, pal.

And, legally, wouldn't the key questions be what you thought and when you thought it? Well, of course, after we determine what the meaning of thought is.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Odumbo wants to Quarter troops in private homes, just so the Fascist Demoncrats can claim a clear sweep in eviscerating the Bill of Rights?

Gosh, isn't it awful to think that someone's _motivation_ might play a role in the severity of their offense, and affect their sentencing?

Oh, wait--we already do that. Look up "manslaughter" and notice how the definition is different from "murder," even though the victim is just as dead.

Huh! Turns out that state of mind really IS a legitimate consideration in criminal offenses. Imagine that!

If only someone with some sort of legal background had mentioned this to Neal before his posted this little blunder....

Thought is not being punished; actions are. One can think whatever one likes but you can explain that to the 2 middle school boys that committed suicide this week after being taunted by bullies at school or to Matthew Shepard's mom. Only the actions of those bullys caused those deaths. Hate crimes against gay people have been on the rise and it is worth documenting the statistics. If one is morally, medically?, or biblically against being gay then don't act on your gay identity. You have no 'right' to decide if you approve of anyone else making different decisions anymore than I get to approve of your straightness.

Homeless people as a protected species? After all the layoffs, foreclosures, etc and now homeless people are describes as 'species'? People down from crushing problems caused by white men are now being pooped on by another jerk white man making his usual blanket statement. Why on earth does anyone think this is funny or entertaining? To pass judgement as if one's poo has no odor is so typical of conservatives. The rest of us are a lot more forgiving and less judgemental of our fellow humans. Perhaps being empathy impaired, having no milk of human kindness, no general respect for a fellow citizen makes one a 'conservative'. Conservative on any warmth or love.

What a concept!

Placing the homeless on the endangered species list would offer them protection.

I can see the liberal point of view here:

"If we don't protect them, homeless people might become extinct."

snicker, snicker!

I thought intent mattered? If you think it does then isn't this just a logical extension of intent?

I can spray paint "my school rules" on a car and yes, I broke the law and I should get punished.

I spray paint "nigger" on the car of my black neighbor, yes I broke the law and I should get punished but, there is more intent there than just vandalism.

If you agree that intent matters in crime, it becomes hard to argue against laws to punish that ill intent.