1
   

Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate cri

 
 
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 03:21 am
Remember NOW YOU can end up arrested like those Philadelphia Grandmothers who were singing songs & peacefully worshiping & reading their bibles. Anyone can now be arrested for DISCRETELY reading their bibles in their own church, as long as a gay somewhere "feels threatened," or like they're being "persuaded" that they're committing sin, THE DEFINITION READS.

Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate crimes law

The measure, similar to one in the Senate, would add sexual orientation and gender to the protected categories.

By Jim Abrams, Associated Press

Last update: May 03, 2007 - 8:32 PM
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1161473.html

WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.

The legislation, the first major expansion of the law since it was passed in 1968, also would make it easier for federal law enforcement to participate in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

"This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

The vote came after fierce lobbying from opposite sides by civil rights groups, who have been pushing for years for added protections against hate crimes, and social conservatives, who say the bill threatens the right to express moral opposition to homosexuality and singles out groups of citizens for special protection.

Before the vote, the White House issued a statement calling the legislation unnecessary.

"The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly," the administration said. The White House contended the bill also raised constitutional concerns, noting that the measure leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.

"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim."

The Minnesota delegation

Minnesota Reps. Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar and Tim Walz voted in favor of the measure; fellow Democrat Collin Peterson voted against it, as did Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Jim Ramstad.

Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as attending public school or voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

"Expanding the circumstances under which certain hate crimes maybe prosecuted ... will permit the federal government to provide assistance to State law enforcement in a wider range of circumstances, and criminalize instances of vicious bias-motivated crimes that presently fall outside the reaches of the Federal criminal laws," according to a report by the House Judiciary Committee.

But Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way," countered Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who died after he was beaten and tied to a fence in Wyoming in 1998.

Hate crime legislation has previously passed the House or Senate but never made it to the president's desk during the days of the Republican-controlled Congress, despite its support from a number of GOP lawmakers. With Democrats now in control of Congress, the bill appears virtually certain to reach the president's desk.

Bush was under pressure from some of his conservative supporters to veto the measure. "If there was ever a bill which needed to be vetoed, this is it," the Traditional Values Coalition has said.

"Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims," a number of House Judiciary Committee Republican wrote in a committee report opposing the bill. They have predicted the bill will be struck down as unconstitutional.

The measure, however, was supported by a wide range of groups, from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and attorneys general from half of the states to the ACLU and civil rights groups.

The Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,196 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 06:28 am
It seems some people can't read....

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.


Unless you are spending time at church physically beating up gays you don't have much to worry about michael1. (I can understand your concern though considering your posts here. I think you would be willing to physically attack gays if you thought you could get away with it in this world.)
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 10:08 am
muzzling free speech
Sounds like you haven't been following this hate bill at all. It has almost NOTHING to do with violence and everything to do with muzzling free speech. You will end up arrested like the Black Grandmas in Philadelphia. Read up on the hate bill at http://truthtellers.org , all the links to the actual texts & definitions are listed.

The bill doesn't only say attacks, but hidden in the definition it says any bias "persuasion", "intimidation", that may lead to Bias of homosexuals. If any homo feels intimidated that there is "BIAS" toward himself. It is only muzzling free speech, the only way it was passed is because it ALSO includes the violence clauses. Perhaps another reason it was passed is the democrat majority of the house.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 10:12 am
This is the second time this joker has attempted to trot out this horsie poop. The "grandmothers" to whom he refers were charged with more than simply "hate crimes." They, and the others arrested, petitioned for relief in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. In their petition, one can read the following:

Quote:
10. Petitioners assert standing to bring this action because they were defendants to, inter alia, a criminal charge of Ethnic Intimidation grounded in actions alleged to be supported by an animus against the "sexual orientation," "gender," or "gender identity" of certain individuals participating in a Philadelphia "Outfest" block party in support of gay rights on October 10, 2004. The charges against Petitioners were initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on October 11, 2004. A true and correct copy of the criminal complaint filed is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.

11. The charges filed against Petitioners arose out of their alleged actions in the nature of "fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, making unreasonable noise with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof . . . by protesting a gay/lesbian block party, using bullhorns, and yelling offensive messages, thereby obstructing traffic." See Exhibit "A".


So, in fact the "grandmothers" were not arrested for "singing songs & peacefully worshipping & reading their bibles," but were, basically, arrested for disturbing the peace and creating a public nuisance, after they had gone out of their way to picket a gay/lesbian street party. The charges against them had already been dropped at the time of the petition, which sought relief against the House and Senate and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So, it is pretty obvious that they picketed that gay/lesbian event to provide an excuse to take action against Pennsylvania's Ethnic Intimidation Act.

Michael will undoubtedly attempt to peddle this lie again and again.

The text of the petition these jokers filed can be read here.
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 10:15 am
Not According to USA Today:

10 'Grannies for Peace' arrested in Philly
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 10:30 am
Re: Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate
This is your original claim, and it refers to the matter outlined in the petition i linked.

michael1 wrote:
Remember NOW YOU can end up arrested like those Philadelphia Grandmothers who were singing songs & peacefully worshiping & reading their bibles. Anyone can now be arrested for DISCRETELY reading their bibles in their own church, as long as a gay somewhere "feels threatened," or like they're being "persuaded" that they're committing sin, THE DEFINITION READS.


However, you now disingenuously attempt to conflate the protest at the recruiting office with the activities at the gay/lesbian "Outfest," which were two separate incidents.

When you wrote "MORE:" you proceeded to a story about the protest at the Outfest, and not to the protest at the recruiting center. If, as you claim, the grandmothers (who were only two of eleven people at the Outfest) were quietly singing and reading their bibles, why did they need a bullhorn? Perhaps those who think like you are stupid enough to fall for this attempt at a bait and switch of news stories, but you'll find that the people at this web site aren't that stupid.
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 11:16 am
Re: Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate
The point is just as these Grandmas weren't doing anything violent yet were charged with "hate crimes" which exaggerated their charges to be 41 felonies they were all charged with. Each one of them facing many many years in State Philadelphia prison. Now the new hate FEDERAL hate bill is much more severe than this state Philadelphia law. The point is it is about beliefs and free speech. Everyone can be thrown in jail for a minimum 1 year sentence for merely reading the bible & worshiping reverently toward your God inside a quiet church. Even Bush is outraged over that simple fact. I see who's side you're on when it comes to free speech.

Setanta wrote:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 11:19 am
Re: Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate
michael1 wrote:
The point is just as these Grandmas weren't doing anything violent yet were charged with "hate crimes" which exaggerated their charges to be 41 felonies they were all charged with. Each one of them facing many many years in State Philadelphia prison.


This is a lie. I have linked the text of their petition, which includes the charges against them. If you intend to lie, you should attempt to do so in a much less obvious fashion. As the petition notes, the charges against them were dropped.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 03:23 pm
Re: muzzling free speech
michael1 wrote:
Sounds like you haven't been following this hate bill at all. It has almost NOTHING to do with violence and everything to do with muzzling free speech. You will end up arrested like the Black Grandmas in Philadelphia. Read up on the hate bill at http://truthtellers.org , all the links to the actual texts & definitions are listed.

Nothing to do with violence? Read the bill before you make such idiotic claims.. I count 13 instances of the word "violent or violence" in the bill. Nothing about speech in the bill.

Quote:

The bill doesn't only say attacks, but hidden in the definition it says any bias "persuasion", "intimidation", that may lead to Bias of homosexuals.
The bill says NO SUCH THING. You can't read it seems. Please point to the portion of the bill that you think says this. Your lies are REALLY apparent. "persuasion" and "intimidation" are nowhere to be found in the text of the bill.
The bill can be found here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110YhA28V::

Quote:
If any homo feels intimidated that there is "BIAS" toward himself. It is only muzzling free speech, the only way it was passed is because it ALSO includes the violence clauses. Perhaps another reason it was passed is the democrat majority of the house.
The bill says no such thing.
The ONLY use of the word "bias" is in this sentence

Quote:
(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

By the way, you did NOT provide a link for the bill as you claimed. The website only contained a link to the 2005 version which didn't pass.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2007 09:33 pm
Man, Michael1 pisses me off.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 06:18 am
parados wrote:
It seems some people can't read....

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.


Unless you are spending time at church physically beating up gays you don't have much to worry about michael1. (I can understand your concern though considering your posts here. I think you would be willing to physically attack gays if you thought you could get away with it in this world.)



Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 06:47 am
No, it couldn't because you would have to ignore the bill to make such an argument. That is precisely what michael has been doing, ignoring what the bill really says.


The Federal Hate crime legislation deals only with "violent attacks". Including more protected groups doesn't change the "violent attacks" to "verbal attacks." Don't let your ignorance stop you from stepping in here though MM. Your ignorance certainly hasn't stopped you from posting elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:06 am
parados wrote:
No, it couldn't because you would have to ignore the bill to make such an argument. That is precisely what michael has been doing, ignoring what the bill really says.


The Federal Hate crime legislation deals only with "violent attacks". Including more protected groups doesn't change the "violent attacks" to "verbal attacks." Don't let your ignorance stop you from stepping in here though MM. Your ignorance certainly hasn't stopped you from posting elsewhere.


My ignorance??
At least I know enough to post a working link to the bill,which is apparently beyond your abilities to do so.
Here is the actual bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110LNVZvn::

Having read the bill,this is the one part I have a problem with...

Quote:
(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and


That sure sounds like they are trying to make thought or perceived thought illegal.
How can you know what someone was thinking when they committed a crime?

If I say I wasnt thinking something while committing a crime,how are you gonna prove otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:14 am
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
It seems some people can't read....

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.


Unless you are spending time at church physically beating up gays you don't have much to worry about michael1. (I can understand your concern though considering your posts here. I think you would be willing to physically attack gays if you thought you could get away with it in this world.)



Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?


You want them prosecuting for verbal attacks? I don't think there's enough room left on the planet to build the amount of jails and courts we would need to prosecute the verbal attackers Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:18 am
Montana wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
It seems some people can't read....

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.


Unless you are spending time at church physically beating up gays you don't have much to worry about michael1. (I can understand your concern though considering your posts here. I think you would be willing to physically attack gays if you thought you could get away with it in this world.)



Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?


You want them prosecuting for verbal attacks? I don't think there's enough room left on the planet to build the amount of jails and courts we would need to prosecute the verbal attackers Laughing


Quite the opposite.
When I asked that,I hadnt read the bill.
I was simply wondering if the language in the bill left room for "attacks" to be interpreted as verbal attacks,nothing more.

I dont think verbal attacks,racist,sexist,or any other kind,should ever be prosecuted.
That would infringe on the right of free speech.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:19 am
Ok, carry on then.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:22 am
mysteryman wrote:


My ignorance??
At least I know enough to post a working link to the bill,which is apparently beyond your abilities to do so.
Here is the actual bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110LNVZvn::
It seems you don't know enough after all. Your link doesn't work.


Quote:


Having read the bill,this is the one part I have a problem with...

Quote:
(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and


That sure sounds like they are trying to make thought or perceived thought illegal.
How can you know what someone was thinking when they committed a crime?

If I say I wasnt thinking something while committing a crime,how are you gonna prove otherwise?


It seems they have to have committed a crime of violence before they can look for a motivating factor which directly contradicts your claim that prosecutors would be charging anyone for "verbal attacks." Your original statement of a prosecutor charging for "verbal attacks" was and still is ignorant.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 07:30 am
mysteryman wrote:

Quite the opposite.
When I asked that,I hadnt read the bill.
So you are admitting that your question was one of ignorance. Just as I said it was.

Quote:

I was simply wondering if the language in the bill left room for "attacks" to be interpreted as verbal attacks,nothing more.
And that question was answered, but you didn't seem to like the answer even as it is written in the bill. Instead you take things out of context and ignore that it requires "underlying conduct" to be charged.

Quote:

I dont think verbal attacks,racist,sexist,or any other kind,should ever be prosecuted.
That would infringe on the right of free speech.
But you didn't bother to check the bill before you asked your ignorant question. Instead you acted as though a prosecutor could charge crimes based on a newspaper story instead of the law. Most reasonable people expect prosecutors to consult the law, not the newspaper, when it comes to what can be charged as a crime. The newspaper references the law which if you were familiar with it requires a violent act to charge the hate crime.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 08:48 am
I understand quite well what the law said.

But,how do you determine "underlying cause"?
How do you determine that a violent crime was committed out of "hate" or just randomness?

People dont have to hate someone to commit a violent crime against them,the victim may have been picked at random.

So,how do you determine the difference?
If you charge someone with a "hate crime",how do you prove it?

How do you prove what someone was thinking,outside of a confession?

That is my problem with the bill.

And since neither one of us can get a link to work,here is the actual bill...

Quote:
110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1592

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes .

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes ; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes .

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

`(c) Definitions- In this section--

`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`249. Hate crime acts.'.

SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2007.

Attest:

Clerk.


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1592

AN ACT
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes , and for other purposes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2007 04:47 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I understand quite well what the law said.
Then why did you ask this ridiculous question if you understood the law?




Quote:
Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?

Please point to where in the bill the word "attack" could possibly be used to define a "verbal attack."

The first point REQUIRED to charge a hate crime is this..
Quote:
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;


How is a verbal attack a "crime of violence" as defined by US law?

Prosecutors can ONLY use the law to charge crimes. Your question was stupid if you truly understood the law. It was ignorant if you didn't understand the law.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate cri
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 09:51:40