• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do We Need Hate Crimes Legislation ? (1 Viewer)

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Murder is murder, assault is assault. Why do we need legislation that discriminates against other groups such as white, heterosexuals ? If I get mugged and beaten why should my assailant only get five years in prison, but would get ten years if I was gay? Am I not as important?
Expansion of Federal Hate Crimes Legislation
Updated March, 2005
LEGISLATION
“The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2003"
Senate version not yet reintroduced [Sponsored by Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in 2004]

House version not yet reintroduced [Sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in 2004] Source

Log Cabin Disappointed with Senate Democrats on Hate Crimes Maneuvers
Smith, Hatch Express Strong Support for Federal Bill Including Gays; Democratic Maneuvering Prevents Debate on Improvements
June 11, 2002
(WASHINGTON) The nation's largest gay Republican organization applauded the debate today in the U.S. Senate on the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA), a bill to enhance the federal role in fighting hate crimes, including those against gay Americans.
However, despite widespread support for the bill, and a pledge on the Senate floor by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- the lead Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- to work with the bill's lead sponsors in order to "make the House accept it" and strengthen its chances of enactment into law with improving amendments, the Democratic leadership forced a procedural vote to cut off all debate -- a strategy which drove two original co-sponsors of the bill to vote against them.
Source
 
If the crime was done for the reason, that express reason, that you were a heterosexual or white, then yes, that would be a hate crime. People have made that case before and I completely agree with it.
 
If the crime was done for the reason, that express reason, that you were a heterosexual or white, then yes, that would be a hate crime.
What would be considered as evidence of it? Speech, graffiti, second hand testimony or other?
 
Last edited:
Squawker said:
What would be considered as evidence of it? Speech, graffiti, second hand testimony or other?
the same that is needed to prove all hate crimes, which i honestly don't know. i would assume hearsey is out as would be evidence that is not considered sound, but everything needed to prove a normal hate crime (which this would be one in my opinion) would be what is necessary.
 
I'm against all hate crime laws. A crime is a crime is a crime. Moreover, I can't imagine it being a deterrent to any of the crimes committed as much as it's a way to appease the masses that think that this is "right".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom