*URGENT* Senate Hate Crimes Vote today - call now!

[FreeState]

From HRC email:

The Human Rights Campaign has just learned that the U.S. Senate will vote on federal hate crimes legislation TODAY at 4 pm EST.

Call your Senators NOW and ask them to vote YES on the amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that's scheduled for 4 p.m. EST today.

Call [phone] and give the operator your state to be connected to your Senators. It is imperative that we get as many calls to Capitol Hill as possible - please call now!

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) will offer the Local Law Enforcement Act (LLEEA) as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. LLEEA would add crimes based on real or perceived sexual orientation, disability and gender to the list of hate crimes punishable under federal law. LLEEA would extend current hate crimes law, which permits the federal government to assist local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. 

This is a long-awaited and necessary step in the protection of GLBT Americans from crimes based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. 

[arcos]

1. kick! this is important! n/t

[FreeState]

2. Kicking again... only 29 minuts until the vote N/T

[arcos]

8. kick again! n/t

[Cannikin]

3. Arent the Repubs pro-hate?

[FreeState]

4. Not most

most Americans support hate crimes laws including sexual orientation. However, the repubs are all run by bigoted religous right whack jobs right now. CALL NOW:)

[FreeState]

5. KICK n/t

[FreeState]

6. KICK n/t

[markses]

7. Since I don't agree with hate crimes laws

I don't think I will.

[PepSky]

12. Why don't you?

Is it because it's kind of a "thought crime" thing?

I used to think of hate crimes laws like that. Then I thought more about it and realized they are more taking motive in to consideration than anything else.

Let's say you have 3 different situations.

1. A person runs someone over and kills them. Let's say though that the cars breaks failed, all the evidence pointed to that, and there was no reason to believe the person killed intentionally.

2. Someone who has no previous criminal record punches someone and kills him during a heated argument.

3. Someone goes out and premeditatedly kills a person simply because he is black.

Now - in every criminal case motivation is considered. Hate crimes law would allow the 3rd case to be investigated by the feds AND allow harsher sentencing.

Don't you think the killer in situation 3 deserves harsher sentencing compared to the killer in the situation 1 & 2? More than likely the killer is situation 3 is FAR more dangerous than the killers in situation 1 and 2. (a probably more evil as well) Hate crimes law takes that motivation in to account - that the killer killed a person not in the heat of emotion, not accidentally, but simply because he was black - and allows that to be considered on a higher level in court. Motivation is always important in such situations.

Well anyway - just my way of looking at it.

[markses]

13. That's not entirely accurate

The content of the motivation is not considered in the three cases that you cited, but rather the nature of the motivation. That is a different thing altogether, a category error. The system for qualifying "motives" that we already have applies to all possible involvement of motives and classifies them without regard to content. Whether you premeditate murder for the purpose of money or glory or sexual satisfaction or world domination, if you can be shown to have premeditated, then it is first degree murder. The CONTENT of the motivation is not at issue, but rather the nature of its involvement. Hate crimes laws attempt to attach content to this already functional and universally applicable system (it refers to motives without considering their specific contents). As it stands, and as the system ACTUALLY WORKS, hate crimes laws are extremely dangerous, since they will serve as just another way for prosecutors to overcharge and "double-charge" defendants (a problem few hate crimes laws proponents think about, or know about) for the purpose of coercing them into plea deals. I am against them for a number of other reasons, but this is all that's necessary to disqualify them for me.

[nostamj]

9. Roll Call vote in progress now 4:15

Coleman voted YEAH.... odd.

on edit: he probably thought he was voting FOR hate crimes...

[nostamj]

10. Smith Amendment PASSED

65-33

[Bluebear]

11. 65-33 AYE