Ha! to AG Bob! who didn't join the 26 state attorneys general, including 23 from states where anti-hate crime laws are already on the books, 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and 73% of the American people in supporting the companion bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592), that passed through Congress back in May with a strong bipartisan margin of 237 to 180. (Take a wild guess how Thelma "Tra La La" voted?!?)

but aren't all crimes, "Hate Crimes" why is it any different, if a Black guy mugs a black guy and is a white guy mugs a black guy... for that matter a white guy mugging a whte guy or black guy mugging a white guy...

I think both are filled with hate and the punishment should be the same...

motivated by hate.  In fact, the vast majority of crimes in the United States are non-violent -- drug crimes, property crimes and the like -- and have nothing to do with "hate" whatsoever.  Then you've got violent crimes like aggravated assault, rape and murder.  Motives for those vary, which is why we have so many different "degrees" in our court -- premeditated murder.  The question is whether there is, and to what degree, malice aforethought. 

Anyway, getting back to the point of this legislation, it's aimed at people who specifically target someone for their race, religion, sexual orientation, or some other innate characteristic.  I see nothing confusing about these laws at all.

Targeting an entire community of people to intimidate them all and drive fear into their lives is a form of terrorism.  That's exactly what hate crimes are--terrorism.

This law will simply make sure local governments that don't prosecute these vicious attacks on targeted individuals will now not go unpunished, and that we state as a lawful society that it's not acceptable to target people for terror out of hate.

From what I read, I don't see how it would punish jurisdictions for failing to prosecute crimes.  And even if it did, it would be unnecessary as people are already guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th amendment. 

If say a man batters his wife in a drunken rage, does that man get a lesser punishment than a man who batters another man because they are a minority?  For equality of the crime, lets assume the injuries are exactly the same.  And if so, why would one motivation for a crime merit a greater punishment?

Also, what is the purpose of such a law?  Is it to deter hate motivated crimes?  And if it is to deter crime, what evidence is there that hate motivated crimes decrease with greater punishment?  Or is it to give this motivation a greater weight because society feels hate/intolerance is more loathsome than some other motivation like greed or addiction?

And on a cynical note, is this just to throw a constituency a bone since they are unable or unwilling to repeal DOMA or protect homosexuals from workplace discrimination?

As someone who has experienced anti-gay violence personally, your post is offensive.

It's terrorism, plain and simple.

was not to be offensive, but to have a serious discussion about hate crimes legislation.  I think if you re-read my comment, you will see that my intention is not to denigrate any victim's experience. 

I am also curious as to what you found offensive.  Was it comparing criminal behaviour?  Was it questioning the purpose and effectiveness of such laws?  Or was it questioning the motivations of politicians?

"And on a cynical note, is this just to throw a constituency a bone since they are unable or unwilling to repeal DOMA or protect homosexuals from workplace discrimination?"

I am questioning the motivation of politicians.  Is that offensive?  I don't think it is invalid question either. 

The legislation to which Markos was referring was an amendment by Senator Kennedy to the Department of Defense Appropriation's bill for FY08.  It does not change federal criminal statutes.  It is a $5 million appropriation to grant localities up to $100k for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.  This is a landmark for minority rights?  And how is this relevant to a DOD appropriation?

Personally, I think if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; well, it must be a duck.  It smacks of pandering, and I don't think it is offensive to question their motivation.

as having been beating up for just being seen walking out of a gay bar, and then ask yourself that same question.

I know you think these are all legitimate questions, but part of my sees that your willingness to see them as legitimate questions is part of the problem!

It's not just pandering for God's sake!! Do you have ANY IDEA how many GLBT people are being assaulted, violently harmed, and murdered out there?  You don't hear about all of them on the news.  It's a real problem in our society, and GLBT people are living REAL lives that deserve to be protected from targeted violence just as much as any other hate-targeted minority does.

Does it deserve extra punishment?  That question is a fallacy because it's NOT the entire reason for the bill. Do you think all the laws that passed after 9-11 specifying much harsher punishments against terrorists for similar crimes that could already be on the books were warranted?  Answer me that question please!!

If you say terrorists that target and terrorize innocent people because they are Americans do not deserve additional punishment, what is wrong with you?  And to then insinuate that GLBT people don't deserve to be included in the same kind of laws designed to deter the same kind of intentionally terrroristic violence against them?

You are really pissing me off here, man.

I understand the level of hate and violence directed at homosexuals quite well having come from Texas.  And there are laws on the books that deal with violent crimes.  Equally under the 14th amendment, we are all entitled to equal protection under the law.  If jurisdictions are failing to enforce the laws, a new federal criminal statute is not going to change that.  Federal resources (i.e. FBI and DOJ) are scarce, and these issues are still going to be left up to the states and local jurisdictions to handle.  If they are handling them poorly today, that won't change because of this law.

To your questions, violence is violence regardless of motivation.  I don't think there should be any differentiation in the punishment for assault, rape, murder, etc... whatever the motivation. 

What is this bill really going to do?  I would guess nothing.  They are appropriating $5 million to be handed out in grants up to $100k.  For a major city like Dallas, that is an insignificant amount of money.  This bill isn't giving extra money to DOJ or reshuffling its priorities.  I don't see how this is going to address the real issue of hate motivated crimes in America.  Thus, I see this as just another cynical ploy by politicians to make minorities believe they are doing something for them.  When in reality, they are doing something that is so peripheral.

I understand the need to address this issue, and I appreciate your passion on the topic.  But this is not the solution and it is not even close to helpful.  Something real is establishing liaison offices in every major jurisdiction; establishing strong auditing and monitoring processes at the federal level to ensure that states and localities are prosecuting the law appropriately and fairly; and providing some real federal dollars to help do these things.  And probably best of all, real help would be addressing hate where it begins in the early stages of life: ensuring our schools are diverse so children can experience for themselves the hollowness of group hatred, informing children that difference does not equal inferiority, and informing children about the history of minority oppression in America.

And on homosexuals in particular, this isn't going to stop the violence.  What would help reduce it is stopping the demonization of homosexuals.  That is not going to be stopped by this law.  And it is an uphill fight to do that when demonizers who inspire the hate are protected by the first amendment.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's not at all how our legal system deals with crime.  For example, 1st degree murder is usually premeditated; 2nd degree murder is usually committed in an act of passion or a fit of rage; 3rd degree murder is usually accidental or negligent.

So, as you can see, the "motivation" makes all the difference in the world in our legal system, even though in all the above cases the victim has suffered the same fate -- being murdered.

from Wikipedia:

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.'" It is said that, when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.

What is the usefulness of harsher punishments?  Does it heal victims?  Does it heal communities?  Does it deter the crime in the first place?  Does it deal with the underlying issue of hate and intolerance? 

And if harsher punishment is what you want?  Why just 10 years or less?  Why not a mandatory minimum?  Why not life?  Why not the death penalty?

This was one line in my entire response, but anyway.  I think you will notice that I was stating my opinion and not the way things are. 

I have noticed that no one is really debating the effectiveness of hate crimes laws in deterring crime or there effectiveness in dealing with the underlying issue.  And why this isn't just an attempt to score political points.

and type in the words "Hate Crimes Project" and go check out what's happening in this country.

Please explain to me how this is not terrorism.  Is it less deserving of enhanced enforecement and punishment because it's directed against GLBT people instead of just all Americans?

It's NOT JUST GREATER PUNISHMENT!!  It's also about BASIC ENFORCEMENT!!

The fallacy you fall into is that the justice system is treating all these crimes equally to begin with--they are NOT!  Hello, Jena 6!?

The other fallacy is that there is TREMENDOUS merit in our society rejecting all forms of terrorism directed at any group of people.  The man battering his wife in a drunken rage, while egregious and violent, is NOT an attempt to terrorise all women in his county.  It is an egregious crime of violencea against his wife.

However, a simple man battering another man because he is a minority OUT OF AN INTENT TO TERRORIZE a community is not just a threat against one man.

It's whether these crimes, often, are even punished AT ALL!!

It's whether the crimes are even CHARGED at all!!

It's whether the justice system is fair about making sure the most egregious crimes against GLBT people, targeted through violence and hatred, are not pursued with less ferocity and vigor because of the identity of the victims.

This stuff happens all the time, and that's why hate crimes laws are not only morally and ethically right, they are a sign that a society will not tolerate systematic terrorization of any minority population.

Christ I'm tired now.

The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is still in committee in the senate.  There has not been a floor vote on it.  This is all according to bill tracking courtesy of the Library of Congress.

What Senators Jim Webb and John Warner voted for was an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.  The amendment (S.AMDT.3035), offered by Senator Kennedy, is the roll call vote to which Markos refers in his diary.  That amendment is a $5 million appropriation to "provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes."  It is limited to a maximum grant of $100k for a state or political subdivision submitting an application for this assistance.

See here and here.

Thomas, the Library of Congress's legislative information database, is the authoritative source for bill & resolution information for the U.S. Congress.  Look at my links, search Thomas for yourself.  WaPo is also referring to the amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill.  Look at the roll call vote that Markos is referencing. 

Your other reference refers to Senate Bill 1105, which is still in committee.

as an amendment to the defense authorization bill in the Senate.

I only saw the text of the amendment relating to the grants (i.e. the appopriations piece).  So, my mistake on not looking back for the full text. 

There was a voice vote that passed the amendment into the law, specifically.

The 60-39 vote was a motion for cloture of debate on the amendment to bring it to the floor for the voice vote I mentioned above.

Of course it still has to go through Senate and House conference committees, if that's what you're referring to.