Obama signs Matthew Shepard hate crime bill into law.

[amy31416]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8whGi9YvYJCiaY9Z-mYoVmDw1HgD9BKBS680


Obama hails tougher hate crimes law

(AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says a newly expanded hate crimes law will allow the nation's people to "live and love as we see fit."

The law extends federal hate crimes to include those perpetrated against people because of sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also removes restrictions on when the federal government can intervene in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Obama signed the bill into law earlier in the day. He held a separate White House ceremony to celebrate it with joyous supporters.

Advocates hail the law as major step toward more freedom and against bigotry.

I'm against violent crime against an innocent person for any reason, however, this law just seems to me to be one of those "squishy, feel good" liberal laws that simply gives the Federal government more authority to police locally and override local authority based on a nebulous thing like a "hate crime." (Granted, some crimes are obviously motivated by prejudices.)

Even if you love Obama, is it not disturbing that he can send the feds in to take care of pretty much anything, almost based on a whim? Seems to me that the SPLC could have a field day with this one.

Of course, I doubt this will apply to a white victim equally.

This article doesn't mention it, but this law also, of course, provides lots more taxpayer money to enforce.

It's potentially bad news for all of us, and if you bring up these points, you're obviously a cold, heartless person who hates gays and blacks and you love crime against the weak.

Not to mention that this will obviously not change a damned thing as far as prejudice goes.

[phill4paul]

If they love Obama they will cream in their panties that the feds can come in on a whim, and pretty much take care of anything.

I'm in agreement. More power, more stuffing for the coffers. Nothing more.

[manny229]

The guys who murdered Matthew Shepard were punished right? Or were they let free because this new law was not in place at the time? I'm confused.

Would this bill have saved Matthew Shepard?
I don't think it will deter crime, criminals/murderers usually commit the act thinking they will get away with the crime.

[klamath]

Every life to me is precious, none above the other. I never agreed with cop killer laws or hate crime laws. Every person should be punished for the crime they commited not what they were thinking.

[awake]

Once again, all the appearance of looking like you are doing something while achieving the opposite.

[Dieseler]

Bad and unnecessary legislation scares me worse than Zombies.
Zombies are a rotting from the inside and out endangered species.
We should make legislation to protect them from me.

[MelissaWV]

Awwww when I heard this on the news I had heard that it included crimes based on gender. Now I see it's on "gender identity". I had been hoping that men who get run over or have their manly parts disfigured by women would have a case against them (women already had a case on the flipside, as they were already an 'endangered species' prior to this).

[Dieseler]

Awwww when I heard this on the news I had heard that it included crimes based on gender. Now I see it's on "gender identity". I had been hoping that men who get run over or have their manly parts disfigured by women would have a case against them (women already had a case on the flipside, as they were already an 'endangered species' prior to this).

So this does protect Zombies from normal people who might be attacked by Zombies?
Hmm.
I'm starting to see a pattern here.
We better call the Feds.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Once again, this just goes to show the absurdity of those who hold office. What happened to Free Speech? Are we, but nought slaves to the master? Of course we are. We have this illusion we call freedom, when what we have is a 10x10' cage.

The only laws that should be applicable are laws that specifically violate Natural Law, Private Property, Contractual Agreements (Fraud, etc.), etc. There should be no "preventive" crimes, such as seat belt laws, helmet laws, DUI/DWI, "Hate crimes", Gun restrictive measures (School Zone Bans), etc. I could go on for pages and pages and pages.

[jkr]

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/comedy/watch/v16908784FSh5QwrX

and...

YouTube - Time Haters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvXoOoQPFLs&NR=1)

[catdd]

"Seems to me that the SPLC could have a field day with this one. "

Them and the ADL both.

[youngbuck]

Cool, we can now expect hate crimes to become a thing of the past. :)

[BlackTerrel]

Every life to me is precious, none above the other. I never agreed with cop killer laws or hate crime laws. Every person should be punished for the crime they commited not what they were thinking.

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

[Anti Federalist]

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

This is describing the act, not the victim's "class" status.

[Catatonic]

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

The law seeks to punish you more if you took the time to sit and think about a crime, plan it out, etc, than if you just lost control in the heat of the moment.

In either scenario add that the victim is of another race and add some extra time to the sentence, and you have the stupidity of hate crimes. If they add 3 years because you kill someone of another race and are supposedly a racist, you're being punished for 3 whole years purely for your thoughts and opinions.

[klamath]

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

You are right about the laws and degrees of murder.

So is this fair;
so now if I walk in and my wife is having sex with another woman and kill them in a fit of rage, I get punished the same as scenario #2 because now it is a hate crime against lesbians?

[jmdrake]

Awwww when I heard this on the news I had heard that it included crimes based on gender. Now I see it's on "gender identity". I had been hoping that men who get run over or have their manly parts disfigured by women would have a case against them (women already had a case on the flipside, as they were already an 'endangered species' prior to this).

Well combining your two scenarios if the manly parts get cut off first and then he gets run over by a car he can claim it was a crime against a eunuch and thus a hate crime. ;)

[NYgs23]

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

I would disagree that those should be necessarily adjudicated differently. As far as I can see, justice should be based simply on the actual damages done to the victim and whether or not the accused was responsible for the damages.

[Sandman33]

Didn't the legal system do this even before hate crime laws were introduced?

Scenario #1: I walk into my home to find my wife having sex with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Scenario #2: I find that my wife is cheating on me. I plot for months on how to kill them and finally do.

Scenario #2 has historically been punished more severely than scenario #1. Even though the act is the same.

Not if you're O.J. Simpson.

And now this law is just going to further the agenda agains heterosexuals. Now if someone gay or transgender gets out of line and ends up in a fight the gay person can have the other put in federal prison....

If a homosexual or transgender whatever attacks me can I also sue him for a "hate crime?"

[jmdrake]

I would disagree that those should be necessarily adjudicated differently. As far as I can see, justice should be based simply on the actual damages done to the victim and whether or not the accused was responsible for the damages.

So you'd punish a nurse who gives the wrong medicine and accidentally kills a patient the same as you would a cold blooded murderer? Same damages.

[AdamT]

This is unconstitutional as it blatantly violates the 1st Amendment. The piece of trash anti-American ADL has been salivating to ram this through for years and their hand puppet Obomber finally signed it. Screw these traitorous scum!! Do not deserve even the slightest sliver of respect. I am seriously bummed on this :mad::mad::mad:

I predict this is going to blossom into an entire new "hate" industry similar to the "security" industry ala "Patriot Act". These BS laws have ravished the UK and Canada, putting people in prison for speaking their minds. Seriously f*ck Obomber and these pieces of shit.

[james1906]

Does this mean that racism is over and that Al Sharpton now has to find a real job?

[rprprs]

You are right about the laws and degrees of murder.

So is this fair;
so now if I walk in and my wife is having sex with another woman and kill them in a fit of rage, I get punished the same as scenario #2 because now it is a hate crime against lesbians?

Now don't be preposterous. If you walked in on your wife while she was having sex with another woman, you'd do no such thing. Murder would be the last thing from your mind. :);):D

[BlackTerrel]

The law seeks to punish you more if you took the time to sit and think about a crime, plan it out, etc, than if you just lost control in the heat of the moment.

In either scenario add that the victim is of another race and add some extra time to the sentence, and you have the stupidity of hate crimes. If they add 3 years because you kill someone of another race and are supposedly a racist, you're being punished for 3 whole years purely for your thoughts and opinions.

I would argue that it is the same as the scenario I presented. The act is the same, but their thoughts/elapsed time etc. is different.

Put it another way:

#1: I find out that Mexican guy is sleeping with my wife, I find him and beat him up.

#2: I come across the same guy and beat him up just because he is Mexican.

I believe #2 is a considerably worse crime. This isn't an issue I feel strongly about, but I can understand the logic.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I would argue that it is the same as the scenario I presented. The act is the same, but their thoughts/elapsed time etc. is different.

Put it another way:

#1: I find out that Mexican guy is sleeping with my wife, I find him and beat him up.

#2: I come across the same guy and beat him up just because he is Mexican.

I believe #2 is a considerably worse crime. This isn't an issue I feel strongly about, but I can understand the logic.

There is no logic involved. It is moral relativism and subjective thought. The only moral position is to accord the damages on the damages alone. There is no difference between either act in that the damages incurred are exactly the same.

Secondly, it sets a dangerous precedence. I thought we might have learned something by now, but I suppose we haven't. NYguy and myself are in line with the only moral position to take, and that is to treat the damages on it's own merit, that is; damages suffered by the victim should be repayed or, penalties resulting (prison time for instance), should be found only insofar as the actual destruction that occured (Death, broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.).

I thought it was an understood principle on these boards that our bodies are private property. Do we have hate crimes for the destruction of the bakers window purely because he is a baker? Do we have hate crimes for the destruction of automative dealerships purely because the person hated car salesman?

[amy31416]

I don't really care about people's personal biases, as there is no law that can change them, only personal experiences can change people on a profound level. What I'm actually concerned about with this is people who are: 1. punished more harshly simply because they do have a bias and not strictly because of the actual crime they committed; and 2. groups of people being targeted who have unpopular, non-PC sentiment (such as the Klan, the Black Panthers and yes, even la Raza.)

It's un-American to be intolerant in the name of tolerance.

The dumbest thing is that if people were honest with themselves, almost all of us would think that our own personal philosophy is superior to others--isn't that why we adopted it? I know that while I've changed my mind on some things because I'm capable of listening and learning, I've never intentionally adopted a philosophy that I felt was inferior, nor have I ever thought that my own culture and genealogy was inherently inferior. In fact, I feel sorry for people who consciously or subconsciously do think that they are inferior.

That said, humility is a vital element to being able to learn from others. Those who blindly believe they are superior and that they know all about other cultures, religions, races, the opposite gender, etc., and think they could learn nothing, are the ones who have serious issues.

Certainly this can not be addressed by yet another bullshit PC law that will do nothing to change the hearts and minds of people, but will just provide fodder for more resentment.

[NYgs23]

So you'd punish a nurse who gives the wrong medicine and accidentally kills a patient the same as you would a cold blooded murderer? Same damages.

I think justice should be compensatory, as far as is possible. Since a death is a death, whoever is responsible to compensate the victim (or his next of kin) for the same amount. But I suppose you can argue that there also needs to be a mechanism for keeping people who are truly dangerous (e.g. cold-blooded murderers) under supervision. However, the purpose of that should not be punishment but protection from dangerous individuals.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think justice should be compensatory, as far as is possible. Since a death is a death, whoever is responsible to compensate the victim (or his next of kin) for the same amount. But I suppose you can argue that there also needs to be a mechanism for keeping people who are truly dangerous (e.g. cold-blooded murderers) under supervision. However, the purpose of that should not be punishment but protection from dangerous individuals.

Open Carry / CC. :D Whether it is a AR-15, Sig .40, Mauser Bolt Rifle, or M240 there should be no regulation, law, or restriction placed upon such conduct, commerce, and ownership. That solves the little problem of "cold-blooded murderers". Worked mighty fine, in the West in the 19th Century.

[Catatonic]

I would argue that it is the same as the scenario I presented. The act is the same, but their thoughts/elapsed time etc. is different.

Put it another way:

#1: I find out that Mexican guy is sleeping with my wife, I find him and beat him up.

#2: I come across the same guy and beat him up just because he is Mexican.

I believe #2 is a considerably worse crime. This isn't an issue I feel strongly about, but I can understand the logic.

Crime 2 is worse because the man has not wronged you in any way prior to you attacking him, not because it is racially motivated.

[anaconda]

I hate this bill. The feds have no business making these kinds of laws.

[specsaregood]

//

[RideTheDirt]

You are right about the laws and degrees of murder.

So is this fair;
so now if I walk in and my wife is having sex with another woman and kill them in a fit of rage, I get punished the same as scenario #2 because now it is a hate crime against lesbians?
I would have the exact opposite reaction, but something would be raging....

[idirtify]

Feds/statists love thought-crime laws that are technically unenforceable. A new one is not only a way to add more to sentences, but also another threat they can use to get defendants to issue guilty pleas via plea bargains. It comes down to your standard school-teacher jury who certainly doesn’t need proof to come to a guilty verdict. All they need is sufficient innuendo from the prosecutor to make the defendant look bad enough. Now you might think that proving a thought-crime would be a nightmare for a prosecutor and a jury, but NO. Since both entities acknowledge that it’s not provable, they merely give themselves license to dispense with the burden of proof and to resort to “circumstantial evidence”; the definition of which has devolved into nothing more than “smearing the defendant”. And because thought-crime is inherently non-provable, it is also naturally non-defensible; there is no way a defendant can prove that he did not “know” or “intend” this or that. And all this will be communicated to the defendant to scare him into entering a plea. So for the state, it’s all good.

I know of a particular case where defendant-prejudice took on a whole new level, due to thought-crime charges. Not only are thought crimes indefensible, but the lawyers told the defendant that he should not even try to claim ignorance - because it would give the prosecution the chance to counter with “ignorance is no excuse” and because it would upset the judge who expects that he “should have known”. So he was basically deprived of his only possible defense (were he to consider testifying).

The whole debate gets quite ridiculous under the “preponderance of evidence” and “reasonable doubt”. IOW, the two standards become a joke.

[zach]

If someone is straight and gets into an assault issue, then couldn't they play the "I'm homosexual, this is a hate crime" card even if they aren't gay?

[jmdrake]

I would argue that it is the same as the scenario I presented. The act is the same, but their thoughts/elapsed time etc. is different.

Put it another way:

#1: I find out that Mexican guy is sleeping with my wife, I find him and beat him up.

#2: I come across the same guy and beat him up just because he is Mexican.

I believe #2 is a considerably worse crime. This isn't an issue I feel strongly about, but I can understand the logic.

Sure #2 is worse, but not for the reason you say.

#1: You find out some guy of your own race is sleeping with your wife and you beat him up.

#2: Some guy of your own race cuts you off in traffic and you beat him up.

#2 under my facts isn't a "hate crime" either. But its just as irrational to beat someone up because he cut you off in traffic as it is to beat him up because he's racist or gay or fill in the blank. If you don't like the "cut off in traffic" example, think of some other irrational reason why someone might beat someone up. (He parked in my space. She flipped me off. He owes me money and won't pay up.)

From a legal standpoint you're probably not going to get a break under #1 anyway because there's been a "cooling off" period.

Blacks should be against hate crimes laws. Like everything else they will be disproportionately used against us. Think "Jena 6". I could easily see that prosecuted as a hate crime.

[Bucjason]

Hate crime ... as opposed to a Love crime ?? ...a crime is a crime.
This is freakin stupid and redundant...

[zach]

Next, we're going to have lazy crimes, jealousy crimes, pissed off crimes, baby daddy crimes..

[Dianne]

Does this mean I have to stop referring to Lindsey Graham as a ******?

[Dieseler]

Does this mean I have to stop referring to Lindsey Graham as a ******?

That's the question looming in my mind.
Just how far does this stupidity go?
Does it cross the line to include speech as well?
How about thought?

Lindsey Graham is a ****** by the way.
Just in case anyone thinks I give a fuck.

[BlackTerrel]

There is no logic involved. It is moral relativism and subjective thought. The only moral position is to accord the damages on the damages alone. There is no difference between either act in that the damages incurred are exactly the same.

As I said we have historically already done this We differentiate between:

#1: Manslaughter

#2: Murderof immediate rage

#3: Premeditated murder

#3 is punished more harshly than #2 is punished more harshly than #1, even when the damages incurred are exactly the same.

Are you also opposed to this?

[BlackTerrel]

I think justice should be compensatory, as far as is possible. Since a death is a death, whoever is responsible to compensate the victim (or his next of kin) for the same amount. But I suppose you can argue that there also needs to be a mechanism for keeping people who are truly dangerous (e.g. cold-blooded murderers) under supervision. However, the purpose of that should not be punishment but protection from dangerous individuals.

Isn't a guy who attacks someone because they slept with his wife less dangerous than someone who attacks someone because they are Mexican?

The first guy is only dangerous when provoked, the second is dangerous to all Mexicans.

I'm not saying I think this is a huge issue, I can think of 100 things I care more about, but I am saying that there are two sides to many issues. I don't agree with knee-jerk saying there is no basis for this.

[BlackTerrel]

Sure #2 is worse, but not for the reason you say.

#1: You find out some guy of your own race is sleeping with your wife and you beat him up.

#2: Some guy of your own race cuts you off in traffic and you beat him up.

#2 under my facts isn't a "hate crime" either. But its just as irrational to beat someone up because he cut you off in traffic as it is to beat him up because he's racist or gay or fill in the blank. If you don't like the "cut off in traffic" example, think of some other irrational reason why someone might beat someone up. (He parked in my space. She flipped me off. He owes me money and won't pay up.)

That's my point. #2 is worse - and the person committing that crime is more dangerous/more unstable/more likely to act again.

I don't think it is wrong to take these issues into account.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As I said we have historically already done this We differentiate between:

#1: Manslaughter

#2: Murderof immediate rage

#3: Premeditated murder

#3 is punished more harshly than #2 is punished more harshly than #1, even when the damages incurred are exactly the same.

Are you also opposed to this?

Yes. Also, who is this "we" fellow? Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post. Once again, there is no logic involved in your assessment. The person who is dead doesn't care why you did such act. He is dead irregardless. I don't know how anyone can be for such positions.

The person who commited that murder in all scenarios should compensate his next of kin for the damages incurred. That is, a general appreciative sum of lost wages and other damages. If this means wage garnishment and asset retrieval then by all means do so. Secondly, these instances would be drastically reduced if we didn't have draconian police and law that stifles us when exercising our rights such as CC / Open Carry, weapon purchases, etc.

I am also not opposed to incarciration. However, I am opposed to how they raise the funds for these inmates. I believe that the inmates should work to pay for the prison. Why should they get to lay around all day? Free TV, free food, etc.. No, that is immoral at it's core (Vis a vis Taxation). It substitutes one travesty for another. So, get these inmates to start making clothing, etc. If they don't produce something, then they won't eat. Simple as.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's my point. #2 is worse - and the person committing that crime is more dangerous/more unstable/more likely to act again.

I don't think it is wrong to take these issues into account.

Since when should we condemn someone on a possible future? On acts that have not yet been committed. This is in the realm of insanity like the Minority Report. Good grief.

[Sandman33]

If someone is straight and gets into an assault issue, then couldn't they play the "I'm homosexual, this is a hate crime" card even if they aren't gay?

THANK YOU! I'm totally doing that shit. The next time I lose a fight I'm adopting a lisp and that fuckers going to federal PRISON for years!

[Dieseler]

THANK YOU! I'm totally doing that shit. The next time I lose a fight I'm adopting a lisp and that fuckers going to federal PRISON for years!

Lol, I'm stayin' the Hell away from every blue guy I see from here on out.
:D

[BlackTerrel]

Yes. Also, who is this "we" fellow? Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post. Once again, there is no logic involved in your assessment. The person who is dead doesn't care why you did such act. He is dead irregardless. I don't know how anyone can be for such positions.

So you think there is no difference between running someone over accidentally in a car and stabbing them in the chest?


The person who commited that murder in all scenarios should compensate his next of kin for the damages incurred.

What if someone is poor and can't pay? Or conversely, someone who is very rich can just kill at will since the punishment for them will be so small.


Secondly, these instances would be drastically reduced if we didn't have draconian police and law that stifles us when exercising our rights such as CC / Open Carry, weapon purchases, etc.

I agree.


I am also not opposed to incarciration. However, I am opposed to how they raise the funds for these inmates. I believe that the inmates should work to pay for the prison. Why should they get to lay around all day? Free TV, free food, etc.. No, that is immoral at it's core (Vis a vis Taxation). It substitutes one travesty for another. So, get these inmates to start making clothing, etc. If they don't produce something, then they won't eat. Simple as.

If you ask me certain crimes (ex. rape, murder) if we are 100% certain should result in insta-death. As soon as the judge's gavel hits the desk, a shark tank opens up underneath the defendants chair and they fall in. Save us all the hassle.

In addition do away with all the people incarcerated for bogus drug charges and the like and we save a lot of money, hassle, and worry.

[MelissaWV]

If you ask me certain crimes (ex. rape, murder) if we are 100% certain should result in insta-death. As soon as the judge's gavel hits the desk, a shark tank opens up underneath the defendants chair and they fall in. Save us all the hassle.

In addition do away with all the people incarcerated for bogus drug charges and the like and we save a lot of money, hassle, and worry.

The jury of your peers that handles those convictions is the same pool of people that voted for our current Administration. They are guys like the one I saw on the news, interviewed about why he was standing in line for hours to get his kids the H1N1 vaccine and how he felt about people who didn't want the vaccine. He said "the side effect for not getting the vaccine... is death!" and he was serious. I'm not sure "insta-death" is a good idea considering how many convictions end in "oops" over the years. Rape, in particular, is a crime with a high distortion rate... sometimes people use it as a revenge allegation. Sometimes people said yes then no then maybe so. Sometimes "rape" is tacked onto consensual relationships between people of near age who happen to be on opposing sides of the "age of consent" border.

* * *

The intent of a crime should factor into sentencing, in my opinion. This is the "protection" side of incarceration. Some people just need to go in and learn a lesson and get back out. Some people need to be locked away like the animals they've proven themselves to be. We already have a perfectly reasonable system in place, in many cases, to distinguish between premeditation and crimes of passion.

I also agree that prisons should sustain themselves to whatever extent is humanly possible. There are prisons, actually, that train guide dogs for the blind, or do other such work. There are some that grow a portion of their own food, which would be an excellent thing to teach someone anyhow.

As far as compensation to families, don't insult me. If you kill someone I love, I don't want money from you.

[catdd]

funny

[amy31416]

Arguing over minutiae only further obscures the overarching point that the Federal Gov't can become involved with local crime cases and overstep local authority based on a whim because of bills like this. All using taxpayer money, of course.

That's what is truly wrong about this, in my opinion. There was no issue with Shepard's murderers being appropriately punished, the Federal gov't was not needed to enforce existing local laws, which is just another reason that this is such bullshit.

[Catatonic]

That's my point. #2 is worse - and the person committing that crime is more dangerous/more unstable/more likely to act again.

I don't think it is wrong to take these issues into account.

#2 is only worse because its unprovoked. It doesn't have anything to do with racism or the likelyhood of it happening again. That is the way our corrections system works (in theory). Spending time in jail should serve to temper the guy's self control. If not he will get a longer sentence the next time. so on and so forth. By your logic all criminals should spend their lives in jail.

[BlackTerrel]

#2 is only worse because its unprovoked. It doesn't have anything to do with racism or the likelyhood of it happening again. That is the way our corrections system works (in theory). Spending time in jail should serve to temper the guy's self control. If not he will get a longer sentence the next time. so on and so forth. By your logic all criminals should spend their lives in jail.

Not all criminals. I would actually release a lot of the bullshit stuff we get people on now (ex. drugs) but I would be harsher on certain crimes.

Murder, rape, child molestation I am not interested in rehabilitating you. You've given up your right to be in society. I do agree with Melissa's point that we have to be careful and our system sometimes convicts people who are not guilty. But in the case when we know for a fact someone has molested a child - I don't want that guy ever seeing the light of day.

[Catatonic]

Not all criminals. I would actually release a lot of the bullshit stuff we get people on now (ex. drugs) but I would be harsher on certain crimes.

Murder, rape, child molestation I am not interested in rehabilitating you. You've given up your right to be in society. I do agree with Melissa's point that we have to be careful and our system sometimes convicts people who are not guilty. But in the case when we know for a fact someone has molested a child - I don't want that guy ever seeing the light of day.

I agree with you for the most part but thats not my point. And the problem you'll run into with hate crime laws is that it is literally impossible to prove someone did something out of hate.

Your claim was that its okay to give people convicted of hate crime a longer sentence because they're likely to do it again. But the same can be said of any criminal. The current system already takes this into consideration.