From Agapepress:
...A California "hate crime" bill known as SB1234 has just passed the state assembly by a vote of 51-24 and will next proceed to the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing. Many Christian and pro-family groups are holding out hope for a veto, fearing the legislation, if it becomes law, will be used to criminalize expressions of biblical truth about homosexuality as "hate speech." Sponsored by lesbian State Senator Sheila Kuehl, SB 1234 subjects violators to penalties that include criminal prosecution and fines of $25,000. Critics consider the bill dangerous and prone to being applied unfairly and subjectively against
opponents of the homosexual agenda. Many maintain that the law should punish unlawful actions -- not attitudes, and that laws giving special status to certain groups discriminate against victims who are not on the "protected" list.
Comments
criminalizing perceived verbal threats
I just read through part of the bill (see link below). I do agree with the concern that this is attempting to criminalize perceived threats, rather than actual. If someone thinks something I am saying is threatening, than that is good enough to bring charges, and even possibly to sentence. That's pretty scary. Up until now law has been about actions not words.....
jamesj- JID: hystrix@jabber.g4g.org
And more...
What scared me was:
190.03. (a) A person who commits first-degree murder that is a
hate crime shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
life without the possibility of parole.
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
If someone kills a 30 year old gay man they will get life in prison WITHOUT parole. If they kill a 30 year old straight man they will probably get 20+ years minus good time behavior. California is not only making certain behavior morally acceptable, but elevating it to a criminal status ABOVE that of moral behavior.
The sickening :sick:
thing about this is the subjectivity of intent. If you were to kill a man who offended you and it turns out he was gay, that could be considered a hate crime. What happens to a gay man who kills a gay man, or a latino woman who kills a latino woman? Crime should be punished on the grounds of the offense, not percieved motives.
That is the fundamental flaw in this bill. It punishes motives and not crimes. It criminalizes free speech if minorities don't like it. It makes centuries of common sense illegal.
See, in my country I have the freedom to worship as I please, believe what I wish, and say what I mean. This bill is not only immoral, but I think we have a pretty good chance of calling it unconstitutional.
Until then...
I don't feel like finding out if it would be considered constitutional or not.
too risky?
Riojas, you mean it would be too risky to give it to the judges instead of letting the legislature or the people decide?
jamesj- JID: hystrix@jabber.g4g.org
Judges
At least in California we have an initiative process that can espunge bad laws as well as create them. But whatever the Legislature comes up with and if it gets past the Govenors desk, I would not count on the 9th circuit to see the idiocy of this or even the Supreme Court.
Tho I don't recall it being challeneged to the Supreme Court, I doubt they would deem Hate Crimes as being beyond the scope of the law. The whole concept of a hate crime goes hand in hand with giving some groups special status. Crimes against X are more serious even though they are the same as against Y. Why? Because we deem X to be an oppressed or disenfranchised (gotta love that word) group?
The whole lot of it stinks because crime is based on hate anyways.
"The whole lot of it stinks b
"The whole lot of it stinks because crime is based on hate anyways."
One of my professors didn't like the term "hat crime" because it implied that there should be a "love crime" out there somewhere that should have a smaller sentence than a regular crime.
Even homosexual liberals hate it...
...well, at any rate I know of one. Over on AM 790, there is a host called Tammy Bruce whose argument against Hate Crime laws was that it is contradictory to the Civil Rights movement. Since it judges based on supposed intent/feelings and ultimately treats one group of people differently than another group, it is bad for civil rights and even homosexuals.
I happened to be flipping through the radio stations on the way home after class when I heard her argument and subsequent talks with listener call-ins. Can't say I agree with her in other areas (like abortion etc...) but her reasoning was clear and to the point.