Matthew Shepard Act or the Pedophile Protection Act??? - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 05-10-2009, 05:34 AM

It always is amazing how the most innocuous situation gets polarized in this day and age.. Senate Bill 909 aka the Matthew Shepard Act.. which has to do with hate crimes.. is it a Pedophile Protection Act?? Or is it necessary legislation..

Not a big fan of more laws to enforce.. but part of this bill has to do with crimes committed on Indian Reservations.. for example if an man or woman, goes onto a reservation and commmits an act of violence.. there is no jurisdiction when that person leaves the reservation.. the laws have become so muddled there is no one who can prosecute.. it has gotten to be a big problem in some of the tribal lands in the Dakota's.. so effectively a crime will of violence will have no consequences..

Anyways Worldnet paints it as a Pedophile Protection act.. others do not..

'Pedophile Protection Act' heads to Senate committee

Quote:

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles

While a copy of the law is here, it already has 39 co sponsors so it looks like a slam dunk.. Snowe and Collins are co sponsors..

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Quote:

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

...The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

... Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

Wildo7 · 05-10-2009, 05:48 AM

This is one of those times where I could put forward all the reasons why this is the most idiotic argument against Hate Crimes prevention I've ever seen, but instead I'll just say "who cares what they say," ignore them, and watch the bill get passed.

wistahpatsfan · 05-10-2009, 07:11 AM

If my straight neighbor is murdered by his gay neighbor who called him a homophobe just before he did it, it's no worse than if my gay neighbor is murdered by my straight neighbor who called him a swish. And that's no worse than my fat neighbor being beaten to death while his skinny assailant is calling him a fat piece of....All three lives are just as valuable. All of them are hate crimes.

Tell me a wife who murders her husband isn't a hate crime 90% of the time.

Sick people do sick things. Thought- policing society will never be morally justifiable. It's fascist and selective.

sdaniels7114 · 05-10-2009, 07:26 AM

I agree with Wista. Hate crime laws dodge the First Amendment by going directly after what a person thinks; but they violate the spirit.

Besides Sheppard's killers got two consecutive life sentences each. They'll die in jail hopefully many, many miserable years from now. That's good enough for me.

***DarrylS*** · 05-10-2009, 07:58 AM

The part that is interesting is beefing up federal prosecution and increasing jurisdiction on Indian Lands.. this should have been addressed stand alone, rather than just lumping it in to this bill.

PatsFanInEaglesLand · 05-10-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

If my straight neighbor is murdered by his gay neighbor who called him a homophobe just before he did it, it's no worse than if my gay neighbor is murdered by my straight neighbor who called him a swish. And that's no worse than my fat neighbor being beaten to death while his skinny assailant is calling him a fat piece of....All three lives are just as valuable. All of them are hate crimes.

Tell me a wife who murders her husband isn't a hate crime 90% of the time.

Sick people do sick things. Thought- policing society will never be morally justifiable. It's fascist and selective.

Great post.

Murder is murder. Assault is assault.

This should get over turned by the supreme court, if it gets that far.

PatsFanInVa · 05-10-2009, 08:08 AM

I think hate crime legislation is the closest thing to anti-terrorism we have in our law.

The goal of desecrating a cemetary, for example, is to cause those in the community whose cemetary was desecrated to feel fear based on their communal standing -- not to cause (let's say) $291 in property damage.

That is why a lynching is different from a drug deal gone bad or other killing for profit motive, or a wife shooting her husband in flagrante. We recognize that flash of anger, by the way, as unlike premeditation, and both as different from an accidental manslaughter. I see no reason to pretend that the law just now started treating different killings differently. The law is already involved in such "mindreading," so the argument that this flaw attends hate crime legislation only is a specious one.

A hate killing is not intended solely to destroy, unjustly, the life of one man. It is intended rather to infect that man's community with the fear and hate felt by the perpetrators toward a community. It combines a murder of one with a threat against every person in that community.

PFnV

sdaniels7114 · 05-10-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

...The goal of desecrating a cemetary, for example, is to cause those in the community whose cemetary was desecrated to feel fear based on their communal standing -- not to cause (let's say) $291 in property damage...

That's why we have judges instead of sentence givers who just tally up the crime convictions and give those found guilty their 'bill'

PatsFanInVa · 05-10-2009, 10:58 AM

Can judges give the death penalty for a parking violation? Can they award the estate of the victim to his murderer as the murderer's "sentence"?

The judges have varying degrees of lattitude. Obviously one of the big jokes of that system for 30 years or so has been this "mandatory minimum" horsehockey as related to drugs. But I digress.

The point I am making here is that whether or not you favor hate crime legislation, you cannot make the argument that it differs in kind from other judicial practice.

PFnV

wistahpatsfan · 05-10-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I think hate crime legislation is the closest thing to anti-terrorism we have in our law.

The goal of desecrating a cemetary, for example, is to cause those in the community whose cemetary was desecrated to feel fear based on their communal standing -- not to cause (let's say) $291 in property damage.

That is why a lynching is different from a drug deal gone bad or other killing for profit motive, or a wife shooting her husband in flagrante. We recognize that flash of anger, by the way, as unlike premeditation, and both as different from an accidental manslaughter. I see no reason to pretend that the law just now started treating different killings differently. The law is already involved in such "mindreading," so the argument that this flaw attends hate crime legislation only is a specious one.

A hate killing is not intended solely to destroy, unjustly, the life of one man. It is intended rather to infect that man's community with the fear and hate felt by the perpetrators toward a community. It combines a murder of one with a threat against every person in that community.

PFnV

You make good points, as usual, but I think there are various sentencing guidelines and practices already in place that you alluded to. More serious punishment for violent crimes needs to be realized so there is no question what will happen when ANYONE is violated.

An aside:
I find it particularly odd that so much effort is going into this legislation while serious crimes against children, the elderly and disabled continues to be insufficiently prosecuted and punished.

Also, I think lynching of black Americans should carry a special punishmentm which might make my position seem inconsistent, but the history of slavery in the US still resonated with some of America's oldest families. I'm nothing if not inconsistent.