Show me a trial of a ******** or assaulted heterosexual, non-ethnic white male where **** crime statutes were introduced. White people people are represented in those FBI listings, but that data has no relevance to **** crime legislation. By definition.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R Alabama): “A minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality.” (Sessions then wanted to know if the minister would be protected under the new proposed **** crimes legislation, because he was attacked specifically because of his religious views.)
Attorney General Eric Holder: "Well, the statute would not — would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for ******** as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends — is designed to cover. That would not be covered by the statute."
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree ****** is premeditation and it's a state matter. You're championing the federal government prosecuting state crime due to race, religion and sexuality. So, what you support is the Federal government prioritizing victims based on their race, ethnicity or sexuality.
Domestic ***** has a historic basis. We know for a fact that it has existed as least as long as recorded history has. As **** does. But, do wife beaters and rapists face the Federal Department of Justice for their crimes? No. Do stalkers? No. Women are ***** and beaten far more than any group is assaulted or ******.
The reason so many call bullshit on "**** crime" legislation is because it's inherently discriminatory and groups that demand such legislation have no voice in demanding stiffer sentences or Federal prosecution for all violent criminals.
As a white man, I'm 18 times more likely to be ******** by a black man than I would if the roles were reversed. That's not racism or bigotry...or any kind of blanket statement on any race, it's a statistic from the DOJ. I bring up that statistic not to indict anybody based on their genetic composition, but to show that the idea of using race to prosecute state crimes on a Federal level, while excluding the majority of victims (both in number and rate) is absolutely ridiculous.
Holder's own words indicate that "****" only applies to some. I have no idea how you can justify a mandated inequality in the justice system.
Anyway, as to the 1st/2nd degree ****** argument, it's moot. The victims I named in my previous post (save for the late Mrs. Hassan) were white heterosexuals who were *****, ******** and ****** by either a gang of black men or two homosexual men. The only thing differentiating the crimes is that Dirkhising, Christian and Newsom were all ***** in addition to their ******* and ******, yet no civil rights group demanded that either Federal prosecution or state **** crime statues be implemented in those cases. It seems that some would like to see Lady Justice's scales dipping a little to the left.
That was a nice little spin of the senator...was he giving a real-life scenario, or just made it up? In that case the minister wouldn't be protected by the Mathew Shepard act, because he IS already protected by the federal **** crimes act of 1968, which includes religion.
When it comes to domestic ********, many municipalities and cities already have stiffer sentences for domestic *****.
And do you have any basis to suggest that the white heterosexuals who were *****, ******** and ******, was only due to their race or sexual orientation??? And anyway, what sentence did they get? Life, as opposed to life + 5 years?