pudge's Journal: Hate Crime Law: Due Process Violation

I know, I've brought this up before, but here we go again. Congress is trying to pass a law that would make crimes based on sexual orientation "hate crimes" under federal statutes.

Dan Savage, syndicated sex columnist, was on Colbert tonight. He said:

The pro-hate-crimes-legislation argument is about pluralism, really, and about how our democracy functions, because when someone targets a person because of their faith, or their sexual orientation, or their race, it's really an attack not just against that person as an individual, but an attempt to terrorize the entire group, to make all African Americans feel insecure, to make all gays and lesbians feel at risk ...

In order to show a crime, you must show two things: first, that the criminal act happened, and second, that there was intent to commit that act. Hate crime laws bypass the need to show that the crime of "terrorizing the entire group" actually happened, or that the accused intended to commit that crime. It takes "hate" as both evidence of crime, and intent.

This is a clear violation of the constitutional right of due process, as stated in the Fifth Amendment.

My argument here is not against adding sexual orientation to hate crime laws, but against hate crime laws themselves. I do have a problem with adding sexual orientation in particular to hate crime laws: even though I disagree with having special protected classes, I believe that if we're going to have such classes, there should be very widespread, long-standing, and institutionalized discrimination against that class that continues to have significant negative effects for that class of people. And I don't think sexual orientation fits that.

Regardless, I am talking here not about that, but about hate crimes themselves. They are unconstitutional, because they pretend that there is evidence of a crime and intent to commit that crime without actually supplying that evidence.

Lol, Unconstitutional?

[WillAffleckUW]

Like that ever stopped Red Bushies from violating our Constitution six ways to Sunday these past seven years of Incompetent Failure ...

Grow up. Look around the world. See that the world is changing.

Back in the 80s I trained soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces (Army) in various trades - including men and women, some of whom were gay.

Meanwhile, the US is still stuck in a time warp.

Move on.

Hate crimes exist and you know it.

Re:

[pudge]

Lol, Unconstitutional?

Yes. Quite clearly so, as I showed.

Like that ever stopped Red Bushies from violating our Constitution six ways to Sunday these past seven years of Incompetent Failure ...

That is the tu quoque logical fallacy. Just because someone (whoever you mean by "Red Bushies") allegedly violated the Constitution does not mean it is acceptable for others to do so. In case you didn't notice, I speak for myself here, not "Red Bushies." (For example, I have criticized Bush since Day One on such issues as warrantless wiretapping and holding citizens as enemy combatants, and I sided with McCain on the torture issue.)

Grow up. Look around the world. See that the world is changing.

That is a non

Re:

[WillAffleckUW]

"Or, if you're going to tell me to grow up, you can feel free to say the same to James Madison, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, heck, even a few modern liberals, like Alan Dershowitz."

They're all dead.

Re:

[pudge]

Dershowitz isn't.

Is your lack of response to the rest because you cannot defend your claims, or because you WILL not?

Re:

[WillAffleckUW]

More likely the latter. And Dershowitz might as well be.

Re:

[pudge]

More likely the latter.

Shrug. I do not appreciate hit-and-run argumentation, so if you're not going to back up your claims, don't bother in the future. No hard feelings, I just don't want to waste my time.