T Nation

Matthew Shepard Act


surprised to not see a thread on this yet.

heres the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act

personally instead of extra sentences being tacked on and what not, id rather see Acts like these instead just require the maximum sentencing for the guilty party's crime.

but it also irks me to think that some one would only get six months for beating someone up in an attempt to disenfranchise them simply becuase they belong to subgroup-X (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988).

also i though these two lines were key. and surprising that the prereq was for the federally protected activity...?

"# remove the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school;

give federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;"

also, what a cunt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxbQmlOT1I&NR=1

especially to base her arguments on the testimony of two murderers and their girlfriends contradictory statements.

*Edit: out of the loop, did not know barney frank is an open gay, that explains the lisp lol.


Hate crimes = Thoughtcrime

Always has and always will. An absolute affront to freedom and liberty in any senses of the word.

The end's do not justify the means, even IF hate crime legislation were to reduce the amount of "hate" violence. (Anyone have a study for this btw?)


red herring much?

thoughtcrime is pretty self explanatory, its just a thought.

theres a difference in thinking "i dont like black people" and going out an looking for black people to murder because you don't like them, or beating them up at poll booths to stop them from voting.

unless theres something in the bill that i missed that you saw, saying its illegal to be a racist ect.


Allow me to explain.

If a white man kills a black man for being black, let us say he shall receive 80 years in jail.

If a white man kills a white man because he does not like his face, let us say he shall receive 70 years in jail.

They committed the same exact crime, but due to hate crime legislation, one gets ten more years, despite having committed IDENTICAL actions.

Hence, we must conclude he is being punished for his THOUGHTS. Those extra ten years are a punishment for having racial motives. I see no real difference between punishing motives and punishing thoughts. If the crime is the same, they should receive the same sentence, regardless of the thoughts that motivated the crime.

Those things you mentioned, "looking for black people to murder because you don't like them, or beating them up at poll booths to stop them from voting," are ALREADY CRIMES.

Murder is already a crime. Assault is already a crime. Assaulting someone to prevent them from voting (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) is a federal offense. Why then, is hate crime legislation necessary, unless you want to punish the thoughts that the perpetrators had while they commited their heinous act?


Increase the penalties for assaults, murders, and actions depriving anyone legally entitled to vote the ability to do so. Everyone's happy.


hah apples and oranges.

it was the same means to an end, but not the same crime. one was racially motivated, one was not, unless you want to redefine identical.

and punishing motives? so you think we should do away with involuntary manslaughter laws? how about genocide laws? or self defense laws? these are all the same crime, just distinguishable by the motives.

[/quote] Assaulting someone to prevent them from voting (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) is a federal offense. [/quote]

yea a federal hate crime. it simply used to be just "assault."


even better idea.

or how about this novel gem. actually enforce the laws we already have on the books.


I'm with Beowulf on this one - it makes no sense to punish someone more for the same crime simply because their motive offends a certain segment of the population . . .

Say I kill someone because I hate gays - I get 80 years, But If I had killed a white hetero married business man because I hated his successful image - I only get 60 years? Smae crime, same affect, same act - one's worse than the other?


And don't try to justify this by citing the legal classifications of murder (manslaughter, murder etc) - that speaks to negligent, unintended, premeditated, etc.

This automatically makes the murder of anyone not in that group of less importance than the "special" group. I can hate someone for their shoes or their sexual preference, or perhaps I just love their taste (for all the Dahmer's out there) - why does my internal emotional justification matter more in one case than another?



Sums it up perfectly. Hate crime laws are totalitarian.


Again, the only difference was motivation.

Involuntary manslaughter is not the same as murder. It isn't the motive but the intent that is different. Motive =/= intent. Genocide laws? Since when do we have genocide laws? I'm pretty sure MURDERING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE will get harsh enough sentence that genocide laws are pretty damn necessary. As for self defense, once again, intent is not motive.

So if a white man attacks a white man to prevent him from voting because he does not like his face it is a hate crime? I did not know this.


This. This nine thousand times over.

Again, intent (premeditated v passion v accidental v negligence v self defense) is not the same as motivation (I don't like X about person Y).


hah hate crime is a legal classification as well.

both murders should get life imo.

its a higher degree of malice, there should be a higher penalty for that. just as theres a higher penalty than just plain assault, if you break the persons nose, or even more of a penalty if you inflict "grievous bodily harm." or even more for using a weapon.

also the emotional harm between getting beat up and getting beat up because your skin is x color is miles apart.

its not convicting based on free speech, its convicting based on specific motive to commit a crime. last time i checked motive to commit a crime is not protected by the 1st.


So if the black guy loses the fight, the government kills the white guy? But if the black guy wins, it is just seen as pay back and a big medal for the 'supernegro mystique.'


stupid. and no. white people are protected by hate crime laws as well. deviation from that is injustice.


What if a burglar targets homes in a wealthy neighborhood? As much as we hear about the wealthy, they're obviously identified as a group by our society.


Hate crime laws are not only redundant, they are our government claiming outright that some people are more equal than others.

There should be no place for "hate crime" law in our nation. To claim otherwise is wholly indefensible.


Do we live in the same country? This legislation is built for protection against fictional neo-nazi gangs that terrorize black families.

The truth is that more than 90% of interracial violent crime is black on white. The rest is latino on black and some smaller denominations. Less than 1 percent of all violent crimes are white on any other group.

To go furhter than this, there is some fiction of rape in this country. The truth of all the rapes committed in a year, its probably more than 90% black perpetrated. I read the statistics one time, its 1000s of white women beaten and kileld yearly by black rapists. For the year sampled, there were 0 black women raped and assaulted by a white male.

I know someone is gonna ask for the sources so I'll post it later.

Isn't violence enough, isn't justice color blind, why do we need special legislation to protect the more criminal element of our society from reprecussion from the peaceful groups. Is this Zimbabwe or something?


Missing the point. One is an intent, one is an internal motivation. If you walk into a room intent on killing a man, you have commite4d murder. If you walk into a room and accidentally kill a man, you did not have intent, and therefore have committed manslaughter. Why you killed the man, in both cases, is totally irrelevant. You are confusing the emotional motivation for a crime with the criminals intent.

I agree. Because they are both intended MURDER.

A higher degree of malice? So you admit we're punishing thoughts then?

Emotional harm. Really. You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Punishing people for incurring "emotional harm" on someone is, once again, PUNISHING THOUGHT. I don't care WHAT the thought caused, you should be punishing the ACTION, not the thought behind it. Or else you are indeed implementing thoughtcrime.

But freedom of thought is. So you cannot punish someone for thinking something. No matter what. You can punish the horrible actions those thoughts cause him to commit, but NOT the thoughts themselves.


key difference is hes not targeting the person for who they are but what they have.

he'll steal a flat screen tv regardless of your yearly income.

if its merely out of class warfare, then yes the guy can be charged with intimidation as well, a penalty already exists to punish the increase in malice.


thousands and zero? yea id like to see that.

and i dunno where you get the idea that im advocating black people committing racial motivated crimes is somehow ok or different...