Idaho Senators on Matthew Shepard Act

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 39 to pass the Matthew Shepard Act which extends federal hate crimes protections to include violence based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.  It also gives increased federal assistance to local jurisdictions prosecuting hate crimes.

The bill was attached to an Iraq war spending bill and some Republicans are warning that the president may veto the legislation.

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "This bill will get vetoed."  [...]

Democrats and the provision's Republican supporters said the bill would create a safeguard in states that do not have laws against hate crimes committed based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And they insisted that the provision is relevant to the underlying military spending legislation because both are strikes against terrorist behavior.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas... This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."

How did Idaho Senators vote?

• Craig (R-ID), Nay
• Crapo (R-ID), Nay

Comments

[Tara A. Rowe]

Even now he still is voting against the gay community? What the hell is Craig thinking?

[Bubblehead]

And I guess Senator Kennedy is still voting against the rich old white male heterosexual community? Why does everyone who belongs to a "group" have to vote in lockstep in ways progressives feel are beneficial to that "group"?

I say good for the Idaho senators. Unless it's not already against the law to beat someone up, I don't see how making a crime against one adult being more "important" than a crime against another could pass the "equal protection" smell test. Did Matthew Shepard's attackers not go to jail for a long, long time - even without hate crime laws on the books? How much longer would they have gone to jail if the new law was in place? Didn't the killers of James Byrd get the death penalty - even without hate crimes laws on the books? How much deader would a hate crime law make them? While I don't necessarily buy the "hate crimes laws will mean preachers will be jailed for preaching against homosexuality" argument (I'm sure some prosecutor will try, but it won't stick), the whole exercise strikes me as an exercise in P.C.-defined thoughtcrime.

And please don't give me the "people won't know it's wrong to beat someone unless there are hate crimes laws" - anyone too dumb to know that isn't going to be reading the newspapers and saying, "Oh, beating up a ______ is now a hate crime. I was gonna go do that tonight, but now I think I won't since I know it's a hate crime."

[Wordsmith]

Of course it's a crime to 'just beat up someone.' The point with "hate crimes" is that someone is specifically targeted because of woh they are that makes them a target to whoever beats the shit out of them.

I may not on any given day want to beat the snot out of you, say. However I find out that you're gay, black, Jewish (Catholic even) or one of a myriad other designations, and then I decide - "ya know that Bubblehead really needs an asswhooping because we can't have gay, black Jews walking the streets. So I kick your teeth out simply because you are "somebody."

I read the purpose of the legislation and I think it had more to do with providing funds to the tribes (specifically names as 'Indian tribes'),and other organizations for legal counsel or filing suit. I'll have to find that. Because as soon as I read that, I knew exactly why Craig (and Crapo) would vote nay. Money.

[Sisyphus]

Crimes, particularly felonies, are established to punish harmful intent harbored by the criminal who acts on that intent. By designating certain crimes as more harmful because the criminal's intent was not so much against the indivdual but because of his status in a group seems logical to me Bubbles, for the protection of that group and for society as a whole. Those criminal actors are a lot more random and motivated by violence. I'm glad that prosecutors in Lewiston have these tools available to them to handle this incident: http://www.idahostatesman.com/531/story/169608.html Taunting, and then battering, this girl because of her not being white strikes me as a more egregious crime worthy of a more serious penalty.

[Bubblehead]

I agree wholeheartedly that such aggravating factors could, and should, be taken into account in the penalty phase. What I don't think is "fair" and probably against the 14th Amendment is that someone who attacks a young African-American man while yelling "try listening to hip-hop music with broken ears" could get charged with more crimes than if they beat up my (non-African-American) son while screaming the same thing.

I'm not just opposed to hate crime laws regarding sexual orientation, rather I'm opposed to the concept of hate crime laws in general. If someone is trying to terrorize a community, there are already laws on the books against making terrorist threats. "Equal protection" means "equal protection", not "some protection is more equal than others".

[Kitt@work]

What I don't think is "fair" and probably against the 14th Amendment is that someone who attacks a young African-American man while yelling "try listening to hip-hop music with broken ears" could get charged with more crimes than if they beat up my (non-African-American) son while screaming the same thing.

Even though I'm not a fan of hip-hop music, I'm not sure this is a workable analogy.

Your 'non-African-American' son if targeted by whomever specifically because he IS NAA, that would still fall under the same classification defining a hate crime.

[MountainGoat]

Motivation has always been a consideration in assessing criminal culpability. For example, the differing degrees assigned to the act of causing another's death--manslaughter, 1st degree murder etc.

A hate crime is another degree of motivation. With a hate crime a perpetrator is not only targeting the specific victim, but is also saying that anyone who fits this profile is at risk and is meant to intimidate all those who do. Hate crimes legislation simply acknowledges that and assesses additional penalties.

Obviously the death penalty can only be carried out once for a person, as you say dead is dead after all. But that doesn't mean that if there were additional actions that constituted a hate crime, those shouldn't be prosecuted as well. For example, we wouldn't prosecute a serial killer for just one act of murder, even though one conviction might qualify the killer for the death penalty. We would prosecute the person for every crime that could be proven. It's no different with a hate crime.

[Bubblehead]

So if someone were attacked because they were, say, a military recruiter, you'd support extra punishment against their attacker? Especially if the attacker were trying to make a statement that they didn't like all military recruiters?

[Kitt@work]

As with any legal case, the prosecutor has to prove intent.

I don't think attacking a military recruiter is about attacking the person but the institution and the dominance of militarism in our culture. That said, military recruiters have not been PROVEN to be a target of violent attacks. Women, blacks, Hispanics, Korean, gay, transexual, etc., have a history of being attacked for simply being WHO they are.

'Being' a military recruiter isn't about 'being' a specific gendered, racial, ethnic, religious, et.al individual. That is about being - REALLY BEING. A military recruiter is performing a service, a job, for an institution.

I think that's called a false analogy.

[Bubblehead]

Thank you, Kitt... you've proven my point.

[Wordsmith]

I don't know what point of yours you think I've proven.

Your example of 'the military recruiter' is, simply, not fitting.

And by framing it as you did is unfair, so as to denote that if I or whomever does not 'condemn' the attack of military recruiters or support legislation ...... which then leads into this entire false argument.And of course, leads far afield of what the subject at hand was focused upon.