musicman Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Supporters of hate crimes legislation mourned the death of Spring teenager David Ritcheson on Monday and vowed to push the bill he championed through the U.S. Senate despite President Bush's threat to veto it.U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, credited the 18-year-old's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee for softening opposition to the hate crimes bill, which passed the House 237-180 in May. The bill is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate.Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who led the opposition to the hate crimes bill in the House, told Ritcheson this spring that he sympathized with him but opposed giving what he considered special protection under the law for victims who are gay or transgendered. He said he fears that religious leaders could be targeted under such a law for preaching against homosexuality.full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who led the opposition to the hate crimes bill in the House, told Ritcheson this spring that he sympathized with him but opposed giving what he considered special protection under the law for victims who are gay or transgendered. He said he fears that religious leaders could be targeted under such a law for preaching against homosexuality.full articleThat is such a lame and tired excuse. It also makes no sense. Does it mean Mr. Gohmert has no problems with extending "special protection" to groups other than queers? Does it mean he is against "special protection" for any group of people? If so, does that mean he thinks cop killers should be treated the same way as someone who kills a criminal in self defense? Does he think that preachers or people who use freedom of speech to condemn homosexuality are in any way the same as people who target homosexuals for different kinds of felonies (murder, aggrevated assault, robbery, etc...)? What Mr. Gohmert should really say is, "I hate queers and I will do everything in my power to make sure they have no protections under the laws for as long as I am a Representative of the U.S. government." At least he'd be honest. Of course, I am sure he will instead say something about loving the sinner and hating the sin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 What Mr. Gohmert should really say is, "I hate queers and I will do everything in my power to make sure they have no protections under the laws for as long as I am a Representative of the U.S. government." no protection under the laws? i personally am against this too. if anyone did this same act to another person, i'd hope the punishments would be equal. because they are gay(or whatever minority), the punishment shouldn't be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilioScotia Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 no protection under the laws? i personally am against this too. if anyone did this same act to another person, i'd hope the punishments would be equal. because they are gay(or whatever minority), the punishment shouldn't be worse.Excuse me? No protection under the laws? Are they saying we have no laws against robbing, murdering, raping and brutalizing people? Our law books are crammed full of laws against every conceivable kind of crime. Where are the laws lacking? What have we missed?Hate Crime laws will be the beginning of the end for this free society. For the first time, a person will be accused and judged on the basis of what he thinks. Hate Crime is just a buzz term for Thought Crime. George Orwell is spinning in his grave.All those clamoring for hate crime laws say they're needed because of crimes like the truck dragging death of James Byrd Jr, a black man, and now that of David Ritcheson, a Hispanic. I might agree with them if they could explain to me how the law failed in those cases. The three racist goons who killed James Byrd were arrested in a matter of days, tried and convicted by a jury in the same town. Two are on death row, and the third got 99 years in return for testifying against the other two. Where did the law fail in getting swift justice for the death of James Byrd?The story of David Ritcheson is just horrifying. The savagery that happened to him and the months of suffering he endured before taking his own life was tragic, senseless and disheartening in the extreme. And again we're hearing the same calls for hate crime laws, despite the fact that the two cretins who brutalized Ritcheson were arrested quickly, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. One for life, the other for 90 years. Case closed -- for them. I'll ask again. Where did the law fail? I don't disagree that these killers committed their crimes out of some twisted hatred, but the law doesn't know or care what a killer thinks about his victim. Justice is blind. She only cares about the fact that someone is dead, and the person who did it must be punished. That is as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Actually the driver did not receive the highest penalty and he will be up for parole one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Hate Crime laws will be the beginning of the end for this free society. For the first time, a person will be accused and judged on the basis of what he thinks. Hate Crime is just a buzz term for Thought Crime. George Orwell is spinning in his grave.Clearly, you have not read the statutes. The legislation only applies to "acts of violence". If the act of violence was committed on account of the person's race, sex, religion, etc., the enhancement may be applied. The only preacher that will be charged under hate crime legislation is the preacher that assaulted the homosexual. If you are arguing for the right of preachers to go queer bashing, then you should make that more clear.This legislation will not infringe upon the time honored tradition of homophobia practiced in the churches. The Christian imams are safe.That being said, I do not see the need for this legislation. The current statutes provide a wide range of punishment, allowing for higher punishments for particularly repugnant crimes, such as those who commit the domestic terrorism, known as hate crimes. Using Mr. Ritcheson's assailants as an example, the State COULD have used the Texas hate crime statute, but did not. The crimes were already 1st degree felonies. The hate crime designation would have made the crime harder to prove with no increase in punishment. As it were, one defendant received life in prison, the other 90 years. The hateful statements of the defendants no doubt contributed to the jury's lengthy sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Hate Crime laws will be the beginning of the end for this free society. For the first time, a person will be accused and judged on the basis of what he thinks. Hate Crime is just a buzz term for Thought Crime. George Orwell is spinning in his grave.If only it were against the law to state your opinion in public when you clearly have NO IDEA of what you are talking about. The hate crime bill has nothing to do with "thought crime." You will still be able to see gay guys holding hands and think "gross." However, what wont happen is when you say "gross" and then go bash the guys over a head with a baseball bat and then get some good ole boy judge who in rendering his decision will say something like "they asked for it and you did society a service by taking action against immoral behavior." That is a rough paraphrase of an actual Texas Judge who gave someone probation for violently attacking gay guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 That is a rough paraphrase of an actual Texas Judge who gave someone probation for violently attacking gay guys.sounds like a problem with the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 sounds like a problem with the judge. What is the name of this judge? What was the case? The court of HAIF is now in session Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 If only it were against the law to state your opinion in public when you clearly have NO IDEA of what you are talking about. The hate crime bill has nothing to do with "thought crime." You will still be able to see gay guys holding hands and think "gross." However, what wont happen is when you say "gross" and then go bash the guys over a head with a baseball bat and then get some good ole boy judge who in rendering his decision will say something like "they asked for it and you did society a service by taking action against immoral behavior." That is a rough paraphrase of an actual Texas Judge who gave someone probation for violently attacking gay guys.So why should the attacker get a longer sentence for attacking gay men than he would for attacking straight men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 So why should the attacker get a longer sentence for attacking gay men than he would for attacking straight men?Sexual orientation is not protected under current laws. However you should reread RedScare's post because your answer is already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 Sexual orientation is not protected under current laws. protected from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Sexual orientation is not protected under current laws. However you should reread RedScare's post because your answer is already there.His post addresses why the attacker DOES get a longer sentence, not why he SHOULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 David Ritcheson, the teen who jumped to his death from a cruise ship last month after surviving a brutal attack by white supremacists more than a year ago, was under the influence of cocaine and marijuana, according to toxicology reports.The one-time Klein High School homecoming prince and football player tested negative for alcohol.Carlos Leon, Ritcheson's lawyer and close family friend, said he was "disappointed, but not shocked.""We can't forget he was an 18-year old man," said Leon, who added it is "not uncommon" for crime victims to turn to drugs.Leon said that Ritcheson's death was a result of drug use and the impact of all that he had been through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggle3 Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Sexual preference can't by definition be a protected status. It's a preference. Sexuality is a continuum. "But Judge, even though I was hetero growing up, last week I was bisexual but this week I'm really, truly, fully homo[/i], I promise".Protect this instead: freedom from government intervention in our lives. Enough of the special interests and diverse little groups crying victim. How about everyone gets equal protection under the law....neat idea, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Sexual preference can't by definition be a protected status. It's a preference. Sexuality is a continuum. "But Judge, even though I was hetero growing up, last week I was bisexual but this week I'm really, truly, fully homo[/i], I promise".Protect this instead: freedom from government intervention in our lives. Enough of the special interests and diverse little groups crying victim. How about everyone gets equal protection under the law....neat idea, huh?While I don't think the hate crime bill is interesting. I don't think it should be limited to just sexual orientation attacks. But I beleive the MOTIVATION of the attack should be taken into consideration as well as the outcome of the attack. If someone attacks a person for a specific reason (Gay, black, jewish, Railroad worker, HAIFer), then that would be considered a "targeted" attack instead of a random attack. Whether or not it can be considered a "Hate" crime is better left for a person smater than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.