I also think the issue goes beyond individual consequences for a crime, to the idea of society attempting to shape behavior in accord with presently held values. This can be a good thing, although obviously not without its pitfalls.

In Canada, there is an anti-stalking law, which tries to address the problem of violence against women. This is a topic that was somewhat buried in the past, but now there is more of a social consensus that more needs to be done to address it. A few years ago this sort of legislation would have been considered a little over the top, if not way out in left field. Today it seems to be the view of the majority that this is how it should be, and that communities do have a right to come up with sanctions to enforce their viewpoints.

Those who use a gun in commission of a crime in this jurisdiction face an extra add-on to their sentence, regardless of other circumstances. This is an attempt to curb guns in society. Now one could make the argument that if a victim was killed with a baseball bat during a robbery, he is just as dead as if he were shot to death, and the two scenarios should face the same punishment. And in that individual case, yes that is so. But taking a broader view, one could make a strong case that baseball bats are far less problematic than guns in society. If a law is successful in curbing their use, then potentially at least, all benefit.

I think in the case of minorities, there is really no way around having some sort of guaranteeing legislation. In a democracy, the majority rules, which is good in principle, but it leaves others open to abuse. Jews have experienced this over and over in Europe, culminating in the holocaust. In North America, aboriginals have in the past felt the sensation of being on the short end of the stick. And if you were looking for employment in the Deep South today, would you prominently state that you were an atheist?

I don't think additional penalties should be applied simply because a person was a certain race, however, it is paramount that crimes be recognized as crimes, regardless of the victim, or perpetrator.

KBR contractors in iraq were getting away with rape because the company was being trusted to police itself. As though signing a contract should enable your employer to determine whether or not your rape counts!

It is also imperative that people who incite others to crime, such as Manson, are held culpable, even if they never held the knife.

The New York Times

July 18, 2009 Saturday
Late Edition - Final

Senate Votes to Add Sexual Orientation to Hate Crime Protections

BYLINE: By CARL HULSE

The Senate is scheduled to consider more hate crime provisions on Monday. Among them is a Republican plan to impose the death penalty for certain acts.

I found this, and I do believe that the additional punishment will be the death penalty. It is clear that this legislation was created due to the Shepard case that it is named for. One of the defendants in the Shepard case received a conviction for felony murder. In essence, Shepard died while this defendant was robbing him. Apparently, after beating him, then tying him to the fence, the defendants robbed his house. This was the highest charge available to the state, had Shepard lived, this defendant could have gotten off with a very minimal charge. I do think that this is the reasoning behind the Act. Under this Act, crimes, such as in the Shepard case would be given Federal jurisdiction and the penalties would be uniform across the country. And since James Byrd is also attached to this Act, it’s clear to me, the death penalty will be attached to those convicted of a hate crime against other minority groups. Since the United States Supreme Court hears all death penalty cases, it should be interesting to learn what the Justices hold regarding their first case. A very slipery slope.

Once they dispose of the hate crime proposals, the Senate is set to consider as part of the Pentagon bill a Republican plan to allow those permitted to carry concealed weapons in one state to take the firearm into other states without violating any laws. It is the latest gun-rights issue to surface in Congress.

I found this contained in the same article, what do you think about this issue?

DWILL wrote:

Sidebar: isn't it weird that the Shepherd Act is included in the Defense Approppriations Bill? This shows the ways of Washington, where if you want to vote for the F-22 fighter plane, you have to go along with a totally unrelated addition to the law.)

Quid Pro Quo

Sidebar:
you're too funny

Obama signs hate crime bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/ ... index.html

Bart wrote: Since I support capital punishment for particularly heinous acts of premeditated murder...

You bring up another instance of "thought crime" that few people disagree with. The victim is just as dead, but the perp receives additional penalties for what they were thinking: whether or not he or she planned the killing in advance. In the other direction I think sentences for those who murder during a "crime of passion" receive lighter sentences. So the principle of sentencing based partly on the state of mind of the perpetrator is well established. However I doubt anyone who questions increased sentences for bias motivated crimes wants to do away with similar considerations such as premeditation or crimes of passion.