Question About Hate Crimes Legislation

[sunoftheskye]

Is there a federal hate crimes law? I know one doesn't exist that includes gay people and transgendered individuals, but I thought there was a federal one that included gender, race, and religion. Am I wrong?

 

[khushibagh]

Is there a federal hate crimes law? I know one doesn't exist that includes gay people and transgendered individuals, but I thought there was a federal one that included gender, race, and religion. Am I wrong?

There has been one since 1969. It can be found under 18 USC 245(b)(2). It reads in pertinent part:

b)Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--


(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--
(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror,
(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments;

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term "participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly" shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot. Nothing in subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such proprietor, with respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such establishment is located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor as his residence.

 

[playwithmemonkey]

Yes, there is national hate crime legislation, unfortunately.

 

[skroobal]

why unfortunately?

 

[Kulindahr]

There are politicians who would have you believe there isn't any, so they can add to what's there -- but it is there.

In a way it's a bad thing, because it requires the law to read people's minds; but in a way it's a good thing, because it gives a little extra touch of incentive to not beat up people, etc., because of who or what they are or do.

Hopefully we'll get to Martin Luther King's dream one day, and we can do away with all this; then we could have a red-headed club, a flat-chested chicks' club, a men's smoking club, etc. -- and no one would care, because they recognize that the freedom of association is a basic right. I could have a motel chain exclusively for gay nudists; someone could open a Bank & Grill for lesbians with children; someone else could run a grocery store that catered only to Black Baptists.

It's a sort of a collision between the ability to abuse liberty in a free society and the requirements of respect of a civilized society. A civilized society wouldn't need these laws, while a screwed-up partially free society like ours may.

Personally I think it will take meeting an alien race from the stars to get us all to think of each other as humans and individuals equally worthy of respect and all; in the meantime, though, we do what we can.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I thought there was a federal one that included gender [snip] Am I wrong?

And as you will see from the verbage below, it does not include gender. The three main categories left out are orientation/gender identity, gender (period), and disability. However gender, period and disability are included in the state statutes of most individual states. Orientation is included in only about 34 or so states, and gender identity in less than a dozen.

 

[playwithmemonkey]

why unfortunately?

Because a crime is a crime, period end of story. I don't think that the reason it is committed, unless it is in defence, should matter. For the most part it's cirxumstancial at best and like Kulindar said before, it requires mind reading. Also, hate crimes legislation is discriminatory, and seems to only appy to vertain grop of people. For example, i've never heard of a misogynistic husband getting prosecuted for a hate crime if he beats his wife.

 

[skroobal]

Because a crime is a crime, period end of story. I don't think that the reason it is committed, unless it is in defence, should matter. For the most part it's cirxumstancial at best and like Kulindar said before, it requires mind reading. Also, hate crimes legislation is discriminatory, and seems to only appy to vertain grop of people. For example, i've never heard of a misogynistic husband getting prosecuted for a hate crime if he beats his wife.

This is a pretty uniformed statement. If you look at just about any criminal statute, intent and levels of intent are almost always taken into account in deciding what kind of crime one is charged with and the subsequent punishment.

Also, check your spelling. That's the real crime here.

 

[slobone]

In the old days when the South was especially hospitable to lynch mobs and the Klan, the federal hate crimes statute could be used to prosecute white men who had murdered black people and been let off by white Southern juries. That's the history of the law.

In the case of gay bashings, it used to be considered a pretty good defense to say, "he came on to me." That's what that idiot who killed Matthew Shepard said, thinking it would make the jury more sympathetic to him. Little did he know that times have changed, and now that motive only makes the crime more serious, regardless of whether an explicit statute is in place.

So I favor hate crimes legislation, if only so we don't have to hear that kind of garbage from these cretins.

 

[Homoaffectional]

This should have read:
But the ruling was with regard to a specific piece of criminal code governing specific acts, not [designating] a class of people [or establishing a set of laws regarding the civil rights of a class of people, as has the Disibilities Act.]

====================================

Note: I'm not sure there is any legislation designating gender as a "class of people" either, similar to the Disiblities Act, excepting legislation with regard to specific laws such as the Voting Rights Act. The ERA was never passed, but I think has been re-introduced every year since sometime in the 1980s.

Does anyone else know?

Um... yes. If you had read above, you'd see I had covered this already.

 

[opinterph]

a crime is a crime, period end of story.

What if the law was written in such a way that intent would represent a separate crime? Maybe if it was worded like this: … “‘Hate Crime’ means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of criminal laws and appear to be intended to subjugate the civil rights of a class of people.” … Then the crime becomes appearing to intend to do harm to a class of people – period. End of story.

In a way [federal hate crimes law is] a bad thing, because it requires the law to read people's minds

I don't think that the reason [a crime] is committed, unless it is in defence, should matter. For the most part it's [circumstantial] at best and like [Kulindahr] said before, it requires mind reading.

Why is it circumstantial at best? Perhaps the best prosecution would be based upon much more than “circumstantial,” such as testimony, physical evidence, etc.

i've never heard of a misogynistic husband getting prosecuted for a hate crime if he beats his wife.

That’s a totally different situation. I’ve never heard of a misanthropic bank robber prosecuted for a hate crime either.


Looking at this issue through a wider lens, it seems appropriate that any class of law-abiding citizens being targeted as a consequence of their social identity should be included as a protected class.

 

[gewhite3]

Because a crime is a crime, period end of story. I don't think that the reason it is committed, unless it is in defence, should matter. For the most part it's cirxumstancial at best and like Kulindar said before, it requires mind reading. Also, hate crimes legislation is discriminatory, and seems to only appy to vertain grop of people. For example, i've never heard of a misogynistic husband getting prosecuted for a hate crime if he beats his wife.

So what about all of the gay people that have been beaten and / or killed and then Federal prosecutors cannot investigate simply because no law exists that allows them to? Is that fair? I think not.

Some people aren't considering a simple fact here either........and that is:

Sexual orientation doesn't just protect gays, it protects straight and bisexual men and women as well.

You talk about Misogny???? That, my friend is GENDER, not orientation. I haven't heard anybody here say that gender should not be a protected class as well, because it should. But they are 2 different things and it is NOT a reason to not add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation.

I know you're only twenty........ you have a lot of growing up to do.

Maybe someday you'll be beaten up by some straight white dude that hates your guts (I hope not but it could happen) just because you're a faggot, then we will see how you feel when you cannot get justice...... and all because your case cannot be Federally investigated or prosecuted at the federal level because of a couple of missing words in the law books.

THAT'S what this whole issue is about!!!!

I deserve protection as a gay man, regardless of what any of you think about it.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Yes. I would agree with you as to what you had said previously. Evidently you would prefer to be the only one allowed to express a point or an opinion, whether or not you're agreed with.

Uh, no............. just that I'd answered your question, as much, in the same thread, as such, and you asked it again, as touch(-y).

I have no idea what "verbage below" you were referring to, unless I missed something. I only saw "verbage above" which, for that matter, made your own post redundant.

By "verbage below", I meant the next sentence in that very reply. I do claim non-redundancy since I wanted to sum up every single category in one reply, something that till then had not been done in this thread, making especial note of the importance of doing *both* orientation and gender identity.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I thought you were alluding to only the hate crime state statutes/codes. Not all possible state or federal codes.

My actual question remains unanswered. But, meh!

I'm not even interested in pursuing this further when people become as petty as you did originally.

I will make a mental note that if I ever post in a topic you've posted in already to remind myself that if you've mentioned something you must be the only one to do so.

Hah! Whatever... as for your question, yeah, believe me, I've often shared your frustration. I have enough to worry about, and try to make sure I know what I'm talking about before I try to assert "the way things are", so, but no one seems to educate themselves much on the internet before they mouth off. I recommend you contact a national advocate group for the disabled, who actually bother to educate themselves.