I agree that this legislation SHOULDN’T be needed, but much like unions, immigration reform and the GAO it IS needed because of lax or selective enforcement of the existing laws.

This isn’t about wiping out the hate born of prejudice and religious intolerance in America and it isn’t about punishing thought crimes a la “1984″.
This “necessary evil” bit of legislation, and I do agree with you on that description btw, is to set forth the legal structure to punish the action of the haters when their vile thought turns into motive.

We can’t make someone like Fred Phelps love us (and I feel like taking a shower after just typing that) but we have just made it a little bit harder for him and those like him who would browbeat and brainwash others into doing their dirty work for them.

Justice is always based on bias or opinion, and will always be while we humans sit in judgement of each other. Unfortunately we humans have opinions and prejudices, and very few of us can avoid acting on those opinions and prejudices entirely.

Justice should be blind. Justice should be equal. Justice should be available to everyone. It isn’t, and never can be in a nation that allows key figures in law enforcement to be elected. Elected officials are compelled, by the nature of their position, to consider how each arrest, each prosecution, each sentence passed will be viewed by the electorate, and in the face of such pressure certain people may not only be blinded by their own prejudice, but also by the prejudices of those who voted for them. And then, of course, there is the simple fact that an elected official is harder to remove from office before the conclusion of their term than an appointed official.

I know I’m going off on a slight tangent here, but my point is that hate crime legislation is nothing more than a band aid on a gaping wound. It helps, but it doesn’t even come close to fixing the problem. Unfortunately there are too many people out there who will see this legislation and believe that the problem is solved.

Hate crime legislation does not prevent hatred. In fact, there is evidence that such legislation works the same way as “affirmative action” and may breed resentment towards so-called “protected” or “vulnerable” groups.

In order to make any real impact on the number of crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice, much more action is needed. First, all individuals involved in law enforcement need to be appointed to their positions. Second, proper oversight needs to be set up to ensure that law enforcement agencies are doing their jobs properly, and measures put in place to ensure that action can be taken in the event of a shortfall. Third, greater funding needs to be provided to projects, both local and national, aimed at combating hatred and prejudice in whatever form it takes. Fourth, and finally, action needs to be taken to ensure that every group, every individual, in society has access to the same rights, privileges and protections.

Hate crime legislation is a necessary evil only because there is no real motivation to take the steps necessary to address the inequality that makes certain groups more vulnerable than others, the sources of the hatred that fuels these crimes, and the corruption in law enforcement that allows the perpetrators to get away with little or no punishment.

As I said, it’s a band aid on a gaping wound, and I would much rather see efforts directed towards creating equality and addressing the causes of prejudice than legislation designed to take action when that prejudice turns its ugliest.

Just my opinion, but I’m glad there are others who are happy about this legislation and feel safer because of it.

You’ve hit on why Hate Crime legislation and protected classes are needed and were created. It’s been recognized that such crimes go above and beyond the assault laws that were already on the books and the prosecution and sentencing process needed clarification to avoid vulnerable groups justice being left to the whim of bias or opinion.

This fight started almost 10 years ago. If you really want thank someone you should start with Judy Shepard and the late Senator Edward Kennedy among others for fighting the good fight for all of these years.

President signed the bill because he had to in order to look like he is keeping his promises to us, which he is not. Thank him after he steps up on DADT and DOMA. Until all any of you are doing is giving him false credit.

Thank you Obama very much – but still much to be done (such as the full repeal of DOMA and DADT) and the implementation of ENDA!!! I have not forgotten those as well Obama (I am on to you with your promises).

the Hate crimes laws now include -

Race or creed, religion, gender, gender idenity, sexual orientation, disability are now included – but:

Now the hate crime legislation should soon be upgraded to include “political or trade affiliation” as well!!!!

People with political beliefs and who are members of trade unions also get bashed to death as well.

So the United States Code should also include “political or trade affiliation” Obama.

Can you name one other piece of Civil Rights legislation That had to boot-strapped to another piece of legislation in order to pass. If you can then I apologize but I if you can not you should be ashamed of yourself for putting politics over your own peoples.

I am offended by this. We should ALL be offended by this. The human beings of the LGBT communities should not have to be boot-strapped to anything.

I completely agree with you. At the same time, however, assault is assault no matter how it happens. If you are attacked by a drunk in a bar for no reason, or beaten by your spouse/partner, or beaten in the street because of your sexuality, the perpetrator in each case should be charged with the same offense, prosecuted for the same offense, and found guilty of the same offense.

The difference should come not in the way a crime is handled prior to conviction, but in the sentence imposed by the judge. A random assault by a drunk in a bar should receive a less severe sentence than an intentional assault by a person against their spouse/partner, and they should receive a less severe sentence than a person convicted of assault motivated by hatred.

No special legislation needs to be created to tell the judiciary to behave this way. It’s basic common sense. A drunk in a bar is unlikely to have been in full control of his mental faculties at the time of the assault and unless that drunk has a history of violent behavior they are unlikely to repeat their crime. A person who beats their spouse/partner, on the other hand, is more likely to repeat their crime, either against that same spouse/partner or a future spouse/partner – thus the sentence should be more severe not only to protect said spouse/partner from harm but also to send a message to that person, a warning of what they may face if they repeat their crime.

A person who commits an assault motivated by hatred towards a minority, or indeed majority, group should obviously receive the most severe sentence. They are extremely likely to repeat their offense, they have a wide class of random victims to choose from and as they are likely to be unknown to their potential victims they have a limited fear of being caught. In a sense you are right – it is more like domestic terrorism than simple assault, but that should be reflected in the sentence they receive rather than the crime with which they are charged in the first place.

The sentence imposed by a judge following conviction reflects not only the severity of the crime, but the repugnance of the motivation, the likelihood of recidivism, and the genuine remorse shown by the perpetrator. If a crime is motivated by hatred then of course the perpetrator should receive a more serious sentence, and ideally taken off the streets permanently, but no special hate crime laws are needed to achieve this goal – just ensure judges have discretionary power when sentencing and trust them to exercise their common sense (if they can’t, or won’t, they shouldn’t be judges in the first place and no amount of hate crime legislation can make up for their idiocy).

As I’ve said before, I acknowledge that hate crime legislation is a necessary evil – I just believe that such legislation should be expanded to ALL crimes motivated by hatred, whether that hatred is directed towards a minority or majority group, and greater efforts should be made to combat the source of the hatred behind such crimes.

Attaching it to the defense appropriations bill makes the process run faster (two birds with one stone) and ensures passage (because even senators like McCain are not going to deny the DoD a budget). Are we so narcissistic and shallow that we need to have our bill be in the legislative spotlight all alone?