Hate Crimes Bill Passes Senate

[hunter]

What I'm saying is...

...the dehumanization of each other has to stop, or we'll never be able to solve these problems once and for all.

Panthera, I certainly agree that these are deplorable crimes. I'm mixed on wheter I believe in hate crime sentence enhancers (because that is what they are).

I find it horrifying to think that people would want to kill someone else for something as minor as sexual orientation or race. (Why does Yugoslavia immediately leap to mind?).

But if we're going to break the cycle of hate, let it start with us WHILE BEING VIGILANT ABOUT PROTECTING OURSELVES FROM VIOLENCE.

One thing I have learned is this: laws don't stop violence they simply enhance the punishment when and if the person is caught. The victim of crime is still dead.

Of course, it kind of don't matter if someone kills you if you're queer, white, black, or purple, you're still dead.

 

[panthera]

Jeff,

Sorry, but that is exactly what the legislation, from the very beginning does do it makes it possible for the local people to ask for help when Sheriff Buford F. Williesnatcher in Podunkville decides one or two or ten fewer dark skinned girls is no loss to the world.

Or some asshole judge in Texas says it's oOK by him to beat up and kill gays.

This act lets the local prosecutor call in help. Let's the District Court say, wow, there - Negroes do have civil rights, too.

Have you looked recently at the upswing in violence against us and the transgendered?

 

[panthera]

Hunter, you're very right...

However, I come from well-to-do folks, I am 6'2", built, trained and was taught to shoot by my dad who taught SEAL snipers. He allowed as how my groups on surprise targets were 'adequate' to pass their marksman rankings.

Screw with little old queenly me or my darlin' and I will kill you. Dead.

But Matthew Shepard and those 10 girls weren't built like a brick outhouse and the law did ignore the matter in Laramie (remember, I live right around the corner), the red-nex bastards in North Carolina who should have been on this from the first killing don't give a rat's ass 'cause they aren't white.

We still live in a country in which gay bashing is practiced, where transgender women are raped to 'set them straight' and Negroes clearly are still open hunting season for far too many.

Not that long ago, the Larimer County Sherrif, not exactly a bleeding-heart liberal (to put it mildly) brought charges against several ranchers who were holding migrant workers hostage on their land. The DA (total Republican jerk) dropped the charges because these were good, upstanding citizens and it was all just a mistake.

There is a major difference between our desire for live and let live and the plain fact that for many people in Dixie and in the Rocky Mountain West, there just plain is no justice without federal intervention.

I don't like it. I was born and grew up in the West. I live in a country (Germany) which grants her citizens much stronger civil rights than the US does. I am absolutely not a bleeding heart liberal (remember when the blue-rinsed ladies here got so upset when I said gun control means "using both hands"?)

At the same time, I am very much afraid that we have reached the point in the US where simply asking the christianists to play nice isn't going to cut it. They don't consider us entitled to civil rights.

 

[jeffg]

Keven, this bill creates federal crimes and provides for federal charges that are completely separate from state charges. It doesn't compel enforcement of state laws, or anything specific from the states.

> Have you looked recently at the upswing in violence against us and the transgendered? <

Yes I have, and if this law was much narrower I might find some justification for supporting it. But as it is, it creates protected classes out of just about everyone, other than fat people, homeless people and Red Sox fans.

 

[hunter]

you may be right...

...but I don't like it.

Part of the problem with the nation right now is that since about 1975 we've been lurching toward civil war, mostly because of too many people (of ALL political persuasions) saying they have the one and correct truth.

How the existence of someone threatens someone else, I don't know. Should someone threaten me or mine, I will use all the powers at my disposal to keep them from harming me.

But if I don't agree with someone's position or who they are (and for the most part, I really don't care what others are or want, I am living my own life in peace and expect the same courtesy) it doesn't mean that I have to FORCE them to be what I am, or want them to be.

Unfortunately, the left and right in America any longer don't believe this. (And I'm NOT talking about hate crimes legislation here).

 

[jeffg]

> Part of the problem with the nation right now is that since about 1975 we've been lurching toward civil war, mostly because of too many people (of ALL political persuasions) saying they have the one and correct truth. <

Much or most of this polarization has been intentional.

 

[hunter]

that's true and from what I can see...

...both sides have been trying for it. Why?

(I know why, that was a rhetorical question)

 

[panthera]

Jeff,

I think we are talking past each other, here. My understanding of the previous hate crime acts as well as this one is that they do permit the feds to come in and enforce the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens?

Hunter,
I agree that we on the left can be overbearing and self-satisfied. So far, the only ones perpetrating violence are, however, on the right.

Maybe we should have just let Dixie go. The War of Northern Aggression was started by the North, the years after were ones of deep discrimination against the South. But you know as well as I do that the KKK ran frontier justice along the Front Range until the FBI cleared them out.

Hmm, let Texas go (do they even realize the other 49 states aren't nearly as in love with them as they are with themselves? Can you even imagine a native Coloradoan saying we have to stop the Lone Star State from going? It'd me more, OK, where is the water faucet for the Rio Grande...time for them to pay for our water ) and pay all the know-nothings to move to the Republic of Texas.

I've heard of worse ideas.

 

[hunter]

Not really true...

Most of the violence at things like g20 meetings are from the left. And I've heard leftists rants more than once talk about killing GWB. So I will have to disagree with you.

The danger in 'letting Texas go' is the balkanisation of the USA. No, that is NOT good, will NOT be good for the USA or its citizens, ANY of them.

No, hate crime laws are sentence enhancers. I have not read this law - so I can't comment on it exactly - but in general, hate crimes laws are a specific set of conditions (elements) such that IF a person commits a crime AND these elements are satisfied, THEN the sentence is enhanced with additional penalties, usually longer and/or a minimum amount of jail time. Hate crime laws do NOT enforce the constitutionally granted rights of all citizens, but instead punish more severely those who commit crimes against whatever protected class that the laws cover (example, there are sentence enhancers on abuse of the elderly if I recall correctly - but they aren't in particularly called 'hate crime laws' because everyone gets old). They are merely called hate crime laws because there is a specific identifiable characteristic (race, say) that may easily be seen. Unless you are doing

As for cutting off anyone's water, it's that pesky inland navicable waterways thing again that fall under federal jurisdiction. Or are you saying that control of people should be under the feds and control of resources under the states?

 

[jeffg]

> My understanding of the previous hate crime acts as well as this one is that they do permit the feds to come in and enforce the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens? <

In this case it's "all citizens except white Christian hetero non-disabled non-transgendered men". Which is why I think it's absolutely absurd.

 

[panthera]

Hunter,

I am a strict Constitutionalist. Absolutely not saying the feds should take control. As for the water, well, I was born in Southwest Colorado, so see that probably a mite bite differently than someone on the Front Range.

I hate to keep disagreeing, so will leave the discussion on the act for the moment. One of us is not quite right here, let's read up on it and then we will know.

Are you sure that the actual violence, not just talk is more on the left? I fear FBI stats. don't support that, which is not to say there aren't nuts on the left, too.

I did enough course work on Reconstruction to have majored in it, had I so chosen. Frankly, I don't believe the US has ever resolved the basic conflicts which culminated in disaster after Dread Scott. I, personally, don't think breaking up would solve things, but I also don't think that forcing Texas to stay if they really want to go (Constitutionally, they can't, all this talk about their special status is inaccurate, to put it gently) is a good thing. They are netto takers, not givers, they much resemble Poland here in the EU, way off the scale on civil rights, human rights and rights for non-fundamentalist Christians. So let them go if they want. Just, don't give them any more money and let them deal with being the northern border of Baja California...

You know, just two weeks ago my darlin' was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting at which the keynote speaker made an extra point of mentioning that it is not only legal but God's will to discriminate against gays in housing and employment. We really are under attack.

 

[panthera]

Jeff,

Christians are specifically protected under the act.

 

[hunter]

I don't think we're disagreeing.

Panthera, I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm simply saying that while we both need to keep our powder dry and watch and protect ourselves from abuse and/or violence, to take the moral high ground and realize that some folks are truly misguided.

Pray for them, if you will.

(Personally as an agnostic leaning toward athiest I doubt that'll make a darn bit of difference but you know what I mean).

What was the context of the discrimination comment?

I am not native to Colorado so know relatively little about the history of water issues. I do know that I think that it is obscene in a climate such as this one for folks to waste water on lawns and other stupid stuff like that. It's far too valuable for drinking and agriculture. It makes me crazy to see this as a matter of fact.

 

[jeffg]

> Christians are specifically protected under the act. <

So are men, heterosexuals etc. You know the point I'm trying to make.

 

[panthera]

Jeff,

I'm trying awfully hard to follow you hear, but remember, dear, in our discussions, you're the smart one and I'm the one with stuffing between his ears.

Basically, if I understand you correctly, we disagree on the federal assistance to local law enforcement aspect and on the basic premise that certain acts of violence against certain specific groups should be signaled out for more severe punishment than are others. Have I got that right?

 

[hunter]

I don't care what the law states...

You will not get anyone to prosecute if one of the perceived majority are a victim of hate crime violence.

It's just the way it is.

In many police departments it is department policy to arrest the man in the event of a m-f call regarding domestic violence - even if she has no marks on her and he's bleeding profusely.

It is what it is.

 

[jeffg]

Keven, I try to be consistent about adding IMOs and other qualifiers. It's just opinions here, including mine.

IMO, this hate crime law is far from the worst federal legislation we've ever had to deal with. If it serves to isolate hatred and violence against gay people, and as a foot in the door to end institutionalized bigotry against us, that's great. However I do believe this and similar state laws are clearly unconstitutional and will eventually be thrown out on those grounds.

I also believe history has shown that the more narrowly these laws have been written, the more effective they have been. My main point throughout this discussion is that this new law covers just about everyone, and therefore will convert our criminal justice system into a popularity contest, an outright mockery of equal protection.

 

[panthera]

Hunter,

Never mind, I was born in Colorado and there is much - most - I don't get.

Water, however, well, basically, Colorado was forced (by the feds) to share her water with other territories and states, not least of which being Texas. In fact, until July of 2009, the water falling on your roof during a rainstorm was not legally yours.

Yes, the absurd laws and home owner association mandates (Fort Collins leads the nation on stupid rules there) about green grass lawns, etc. are truly scary. I mean, just where the hell is the water supposed to come form. Hello, 'high arid plain', mean anything? Obviously not, we'll just pretend those aquifers are bottomless.

Anyway, Colorado was forced to share and those provisions have rankled natives ever sense. They aren't necessarily unfair to the state, and had Colorado been willing to play fairly with Texas et al. the feds wouldn't have got involved. The current bug-a-boo is Southern California with the Colorado river. Yes, I know, but where does that water flow into the river from?

The URL is just a brief look at the current situation from the perspective of a neutral state. I'll try to scan and copy out some early 20th century history on the water mess for you in December or maybe you can find it online. It's quite interesting reading.

We need to figure out, and that right quick, if America can continue to be an "Agrarian" country/economy or if we are going to be a capitalist country which practices value addition of raw resources. The Republican solution of the last 30 some odd years has bankrupted us. We don't make anything, we just sell widgets to each other. The right has succeeded in reducing their entire economic stance to a frozen in time mantra: reduce taxes. This is not necessarily the right solution to every economic problem. By chasing all the moderates out, they ended up with only the christianists (not Christians) running things and are now completely opposed to everything the other party suggests, just on principle.

The Democrats, on the other hand (again, it is irrelevant to be a libertarian in America, they don't win elections), have become the party of knee-jerk political correctness and one-size-fits-all social solutions. We don't need more guns in the hell-holes of America's inner cities, whether Denver or Detroit. We need guns as tools on a ranch in Weld county.

In the end, I see Republicans denying me human status and doing their best to strip me of what few civil rights I do have. If the Democrats haven't moved as fast as they needed to, we have seen more progress on civil rights for all Americans under Obama than the last eight years together.

By the end of the Bush dictatorship, we had lost habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights had been secretly suspended. They have been restored under Obama. I really don't see anybody on the right arguing that that is a good thing or that Bush and Co. removed liberties and rights.

Loading…

ag.arizona.edu

 

[hunter]

Please tell me how they have been restored,

...especially since Obama has put in for a Patriot act extension.

I have seen no indication of this.

"sneak and peak" searches are still happening.
The so called 'war on drugs' is still going on.
NAFTA is still in force as is GATT.

Thanks for the water link I am reading it now.

 

[panthera]

Hunter and Jeff,

I am not happy about those things, either, but I am referring literally to habeas corpus, literally to the secret court decison to suspend the Bill of Rights. Those have been overturned by Obama's justice department and the Constitutional rule of law restored. These other things like NAFTA, etc. are a pain in the butt, but they are based on federally prosecuted treaties which were ratified by legally elected representatives. We may not be happy about them, but you can not compare them to stripping American citizens of the right to hear the charges against them in front of a court of justice...

Here's the text of the Hate Crimes Law as passed out of the House. It is the basis for what Obama will sign. Unless someone really wants the full defense bill, I ain't gonna do that. Even if they do want it, just take my word for it, they're the same...or look it up.


This version: Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.

HR 1913 RFS

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1913

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 30, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) 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.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 6. 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 kidnaping 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), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse 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 kidnaping 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, 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) ADDITIONAL FEDERAL NEXUS FOR OFFENSE- Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in Indian country, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as those provided for offenses under those paragraphs.

‘(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

‘(c) Definitions-

‘(1) In this section--

‘(A) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

‘(B) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

‘(C) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

‘(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘gender identity’ means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

‘(d) Statute of Limitations-

‘(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

‘(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.

‘(e) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘249. Hate crime acts.’.

SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2009.

Attest:

LORRAINE C. MILLER,

Clerk.