Hate Crimes Legislation/Joe Donnelly reply to my email.

[and-justice-for-all]

- Joe was one that voted against the legislation, so I sent him an email expressing my disappointment in his vote and this is his reply...

Thank you for contacting me about hate crimes legislation. I value your views, and your input helps me better represent Indiana's Second District in Congress.

All violent crimes are in some way born of hate, and I believe all should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of motive. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors do their best to punish violent criminals, but they cannot eradicate hate from our society. It is up to us-in how we raise our children and how we treat one another-to limit the impact hate has on our communities.

With this in mind, I voted against H.R. 1913, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which passed the House of Representatives on April 29, 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175. If signed into law, this bill would expand the types of crimes and victims covered by federal hate crimes law, strengthen covered penalties, and provide grants to prosecute these hate crime provisions.

While I am not convinced that a federal hate crimes law would reduce the incidence of crime in our communities, Congress should play an active role in supporting the work of our police departments and prosecutors. That is why I support increasing funding for the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program to help state and local law enforcement entities hire new prosecutors and pay for overtime, training and equipment, and why I have cosponsored legislation to reauthorize the Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Program to put tens of thousands of additional police officers onto our streets.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to write, call or email me again if I can ever be of assistance. Also, if you would like to receive regular updates on my actions on your behalf in Congress, sign up for my e-newsletter, The Donnelly Dispatch, at http://donnelly.house.gov.



Sincerely,

Joe Donnelly

Member of Congress

[mr_liberal]

1. This is creating "thought crimes" imo.

It seems like it could be a short jump from this kind of law to laws against speech itself. Its the bridge to that.

I don't like the possible chilling effect of this kind of law either. You get in a tussle or something and anything you wrote or said could be used as evidence that you did it because of hating some group.

Theres already laws against assault etc.. theres no need to penalize the thought as well. And I dont see why one assault is worse than another just because of the thought behind it.

Free speech is too important to jeopardize it with this kind of politically correct law.

Im with Donnelly.

[The Magistrate]

4. Bloody-Minded Nonsense, Sir

Assessing what is in the thoughts of a person committing an act is a solid part of criminal law, and has been for ages. Assaults are already graded by what is in the mind of the person who is charged: the difference between felony assault and attempted murder is purely an assessment of thought, and the difference between manslaughter and murder generally turns on the same thing. An assault committed to further a theft or an extortion is treated differently then simply striking another in anger, and these are certainly questions of intent.

Assaults on persons whom the attacker assaults as representatives of a class of persons the attacker hates collectively are acts which extend beyond the individual assaulted, and are meant to do so by the attacker. They are intended to affect all persons of the sort the attacker hates, to put them in fear, and so far as possible to make them go away entirely. This calls for a separate category of crime: it has no more to do with simple assault than rape has to do with sexual desire.

Do not make the attempt to equate violent assault on the person of another with 'free speech', Sir. That is puerile and contemptible.

[and-justice-for-all]

6. good grief....

You can say whatever the hell you want, but your actions will lead to your guilt. there is no way that Hate Crime Laws would ever have any effect upon the 1st amendment.

Donnelly's position is flawed.

[NMMNG]

7. Oh FFS

Hate crimes laws have been on the books for ten years now. They protect people based on their race, ethnicity, disability religion and other factors. All HR 1913 does is add LGBT people to the existing laws. It gives LGBT people the same protections other people take for granted.

Why do bigoted idiots insist on having the vapors and making up this "thought crime" bullshit now that LGBT people are getting what other people already have? I don't see anybody screaming "though crimes!1!1" because John Doe would go to prison for a longer sentence if he beat the shit out of Bob because Joe hated Christians. But boy are the whackos going apeshit because they don't want to do the extra time for targeting gays for violent crimes.

[gratuitous]

2. "All violent crimes are . . . born in hate"

So, all murder is just that--murder? The man who plots out his romantic rival's death should sit in the same cell for the same amount of time as the man who backs over his child in the driveway? Dead is dead, or so I've heard. Shouldn't make any difference if the murder as premeditated or negligent, right Mr. Donnelly?

Stuff and nonsense. We make gradations and judgments all the time when it comes to crime. Aggravating and mitigating factors are considered, developed and submitted to juries every day. This is just one other factor our criminal justice system should consider in the commission of a crime.

[pipoman]

3. There are differences

between the penalty for involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder, they are different crimes, people aren't charged with murder and premeditation as separate crimes. Racism and other motives can already be used during sentencing as an aggravating factor. To create a separate crime based on the thoughts or motives is different than using the motives to enhance penalties for commission of a crime. These laws are always challenged because they are rarely administered evenly and are notoriously difficult to prove.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. Matthew Shepard was the victim of Premeditated murder...

based on his sexual orientation. Those fucks who killed him KNEW exactly what they were going to do; it was a murder based on hate. The same goes for some one who has been killed or assaulted based in their ethnicity. People do not accidentally plan to kill people..

What you state pipoman is correct.

[pipoman]

8. Maybe I misunderstood your OP

My point is that Hate Crimes Legislation is redundant and is very hard to apply fairly, equal protection under the law and all that. I view hate crimes laws to be more politically correct than actually utilitarian. Nobody is more attuned to egregious criminal acts than I, but I believe that motive and heinous acts are already addressed by variance in possible sentencing. So, in short, I am not an advocate for hate crimes legislation.

[dsc]

9. So you want single judges to decide what is and isn't a hate crime

far better from a due process point of view to have it spelled out in clearly written laws.

[pipoman]

10. Not necessarily

I want judges (and juries as much as allowed) to decide punishments on the merit of the case. Truth is there is no panacea when it comes to our court system. Mandatory minimums have little variance which make them unjust at times, much like 'zero tolerance policies'. I don't believe that motive beyond certain key points should enhance sentences. IOW, I believe it unjust to make the aggravated murder of one person more severe than the aggravated murder of another. If my straight son is murdered because a former boyfriend of his girlfriend plans his murder, or my gay son is murdered because some skinhead hates gays and plans his murder, I feel each murder should be treated/punished to the same extent. I don't see any deterrent value to 'hate crimes laws'. I do expect rare enforcement seeing how enforcement, especially at the Federal level, is lax at best on most crime. I am all for adding (already done) GLBT to equal opportunity rules/laws. I simply don't see this being enforced equally or often, only used as a political ploy by politically motivated prosecutors.