So, if this new hate crimes bill currently making its way through the Texas Legislature actually passes, would this mean that Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price would face stiffer penalties for trespassing when he and other protest outside Dallas City Councilwoman Laura Miller's house with signs that read "Wh*re" and "B*tch" and so on? (They were upset that she had the gall to ask about the investigation into DPD Chief Terrell Bolton's involvement with a topless club that was allegedly paying bribes in order to get relaxed enforcement of obscenity laws at the club). Reading the explanation of the law, Mr. Price would not be subject to increased penalties because "sex" is not listed as a protected class. Sexual orientation is (so the signs the protestors were carrying with homosexual slurs would be worse than the ones directed at Miller... unless there was one that called her a dyke or something), and if protestors used racial or ethnic slurs on par with the slurs used against Miller in a protest against Price, that actually would apparently be subject to harsher fines. So in Texas, even when we talk about making hate crimes illegal, we are still not overly concerned about making all hate crimes illegal. (Of course, the bill probably isn't going to get passed the Senate or the Governor anyway). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
I agree, they are stupid. All you are doing is adding more diversity. Regardless of the crime, you should get punished the same way. If someone kills someone for their color or someone kills someone for the hell of it, it shouldn't matter. It should depends on the intent. And as much as everyone loves to scream racist these days, the first white person that kills a black person will be charged with a hate crime, regardless if it was an accident. ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
That's the problem Space Ghost, people aren't punished equally for their crimes. White people generally get lesser sentences than minorities. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
Well, my main opposition to this specific bill is the fact that sex was not included as a protected class. If we're going to have a hate crimes law at all, we should include hate crimes based on sex, as well. But I don't think there should be a hate crimes bill at all. (And any variations in sentences that exist among races should be handled by the current laws rather than new laws, especially since this law covers all hate crimes. Very little white on black crime is actually a hate crime in the real world, so sentences would not be significantly changed by this added punishment. Not to mention that non-whites do commit hate crimes, as well. And even when they don't, some prosecutors would use a hate crimes law as throw-down charges against non-whites). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited April 26, 2001).]
Hate crimes are a product of discrimination, and all this does is prepetuate discrimination farther. We don't need more laws, just enforce the ones we already have. Until we stop legislating based on sex, race, nationality etc..etc....we will not get rid of racism & discrimination. Make everyone equal for crying out loud. DaDakota ------------------ If you like RTS games, check out this one. www.frontierwars.com coming soon to a PC near you.
I don't see why juries get to decide sentencing. Why not let the juries just decide innocence or guilt, and let the sentencing be set depending upon the crime? ------------------ "I'll be gettin real drunk and making fun of everybody"
Well, it would be hard to simply have a set sentence based on the crime itself as there are mitigating factors in crimes that necessitate some differences in sentences for similar crimes. I think I would rather the sentencing be up to judges rather than the juries. There would still be variation in sentences (some judges would be more harsh than others, etc), but juries seem to be easier to influence (and certainly juries have no historical reference. A judge can look at similar cases and decide a punishment based on that, even if it's based on his own experience on the court). Of course, the problem with judges in this state is that they are elected, and I'd hate to add another big factor in their elections (if the judges were responsible for doling out punishments, they could easily temper their sentences based on their re-election efforts). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
My lawyer friend, IIRC, has this to say about juries picking offenses and thereby sentencing ranges: For instance take Manslaughter vs Murder. A couple of cases came up where, for instance, husband walks in on wife with another man and kills the other man in the 'heat of passion'. So, the husband is tried for murder. A couple cases come up where the jury says "Well, yeah, husband killed the man, but, I'd have done the same thing, he doesn't deserve 20+ years", and find the husband not guilty. So, the Prosecutors think to themselves "Well, if the juries won't convict these husbands of murder, we still wanna get 'em for something, so maybe we create a lesser offense". So they decide to create Manslaugther. So maybe the jury will find guilty for manslaughter, at least. So, Manslaughter is lawmakers' reactions to juries' refusal to convict passionate husbands. So says my lawyer friend, IIRC. "ยง 19.02. Murder . . . (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree. [i.e. Murder] (d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree. [i.e. Manslaughter] . . . (1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection. (2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation." _ [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited April 26, 2001).]
Hate crime laws are stupid. The are making something that is already illegel more illegal. Does it really matter if someone kills you because you are a different race or sexual orientation instead of for your shoes or wallet? A crime is a crime, the motivation does not change the outcome. ------------------ "Of course, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong" -- Dennis Miller
Yeah, but in places like Texas, Mississippi or North Carolina, to name a few, you may have people who give lighter sentences to whites who kill minorities, and you'd probably have a hard time anywhere finding a jury that will give a maximum sentence for gay bashing. We already give out harsher punishments for those who say, kill kids or cops, even though it's unwritten. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
